Legislative Council Hansard - Wednesday 17 November 2021
Legislative Council Hansard
Wednesday 17 November 2021

Wednesday, 17 November 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.34 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The PRESIDENT (09:35): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.

Petitions

Following petitions presented to house:

Dingley bypass noise barriers

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council to the need for attenuation of noise and protection of ambiance and natural habitat of Karkarook Park, Heatherton.

Karkarook Park is adjacent to the Dingley Bypass and Warrigal Road and is a haven for residents and visitors in stressful times. The park has provided family time, healthy exercise and mental health respite with over 1,070,000 visitations in 2020. It provides opportunity to immerse visitors within its natural habitats and has never been so essential to the well-being of Victorians in this suburban area.

There are well advanced plans for a bird hide and outdoor classroom within 60 meters of the Dingley Bypass boundary. The facility will cater to 35 schools in the area as well as residents of all ages and abilities. This community sponsored development will realise the educational and inspirational potential of this unique parkland, ensuring its preservation for future generations.

Noise from the Dingley Bypass and Warrigal Road compromise the significant benefits of the existing use of Karkarook Park as well as future uses and inspiration for generations to come.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to construct a sound wall on the southern side of the Dingley Bypass for a 500-metre stretch where it abuts Karkarook Park in Heatherton, and provide appropriate vegetation as additional sound absorption, visual appeal and an undisturbed habitat for small birds.

By Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (135 signatures).

Laid on table.

Wild horse control

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that wild horses have successfully lived symbiotically with native wildlife in the Bogong High Plains and Eastern Alps of the Alpine National Park for 200 years. Wild horses or brumbies hold significant cultural and social value for Australians as descendants of horses that helped forge establishment of colonies and were sent to war with our soldiers.

Today, brumbies support ecological biodiversity. There is no peer reviewed science to prove otherwise, they forage on undergrowth reducing risk of fires. Population counts and claims of damage allegedly caused by wild horses seem to be grossly overestimated as examination of reports indicate claimed numbers to be mathematically impossible, hence exaggerated claims of damage. The Government are seeking to remove 560 Brumbies from Bogong and Eastern Alps this year and are proposing ground shooting which will cause horses to scatter and mis-shooting will lead to protracted deaths of injured horses. Aerial shooting is also grossly cruel, as shooting from moving helicopters leads to inaccuracies and horses being shot multiple times with prolonged, cruel and painful deaths.

This plan will lead to a cruel brumby bloodbath.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to abandon any action that utilises ground or aerial shooting of wild horses and introduce legislation to protect and conserve wild living brumby mobs which should involve a community advisory panel to provide guidance on retention of sustainable brumby mobs in National Parks with agreed numbers to be removed systematically with adequate time for rehoming and public adoption.

By Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (1154 signatures).

Laid on table.

Committees

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Inquiry into the Performance of Victorian Integrity Agencies 2019/20

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (09:41): It is my pleasure and my honour to stand today to table the Integrity and Oversight Committee’s Inquiry into the Performance of Victorian Integrity Agencies 2019/20. Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table the report from this committee on the inquiry into the performance of these agencies, including an appendix. I further present transcripts of evidence, and I move:

That the transcripts of evidence lie on the table and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ms SHING: I am really pleased to be able to table this report today and to speak briefly on it, and I do so by including my friend and colleague on this committee Mr Grimley and also noting that there are other members—

The PRESIDENT: Ms Shing, you have to move that the Council take note of the report.

Ms SHING: My apologies. I leapt out of the box too early, President. I am a bit excited about this. I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

In so doing—I might take that from the top, with the latitude of the chamber—I would like to acknowledge for the second time this morning my colleague in this place Mr Grimley, who as a member of this committee has made an invaluable contribution as one of the two people from this chamber to participate. Indeed I give a shout-out to colleagues in the other place who are also members: the chair, Ms Hennessy; the deputy chair, Mr Rowswell; Mr Halse; Mr Taylor; and Mr Wells. What we have done in the course of this inquiry is fulfil our obligations under section 7 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003 in relation to the 2019–20 year and go through the process of understanding the way in which performance has been acquitted and the way in which obligations have been met.

I would, in the time I have available, like to give a huge shout-out to a tireless secretariat that works often through very intricate processes associated with work of this nature to deliver the product that results now in today’s tabling, in particular Mr Sean Coley, the committee manager—thank you so much for your tireless work; Dr Stephen James, senior research officer; and Tracey Chung, the research officer until 30 August 2021. Tracey, we miss you. You are indispensable. We cannot wait to have you back. Tom Hvala, a research officer who has recently joined the committee, is doing indispensable work and filling Tracey’s shoes admirably. Katherine Murtagh, the research assistant, left us in April this year and is exceptionally missed for her excellent contribution. Holly Brennan, the complaints and research assistant, took over from 7 June this year. It is a cast of thousands, but indeed this is important work that requires the input of many. Maria Marasco is the committee administrative officer and Bernadette Prendergast is also a committee administrative officer.

The work that we have done continues the work of integrity measures, scrutiny and accountability for integrity agencies. The way in which monitoring and review is undertaken to assess the performance and duties of our principal integrity agencies contributes to, in my mind, a really essential and crucial part of the way in which the state’s integrity system operates.

We have had, as is noted in Ms Hennessy’s foreword, an exceptionally challenging period in the 2019–20 year, and we have seen numerous challenges presented to the public sector, including to integrity agencies. In this context I do want to note the resilience that has been on display from integrity agencies, officers and indeed members of the public sector system within which these integrity agencies operate.

As acknowledged in the chair’s foreword, Mr Steve McGhie, the member for Melton in the other place, was the chair prior to Ms Hennessy assuming the position, and indeed it falls to me also to acknowledge Mr McGhie’s excellent work in the lead-up to Ms Hennessy’s appointment to the chair of this committee.

The report reviews the performance of the IBAC; the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, OVIC; the Victorian Inspectorate; and the Ombudsman, and this involves in the first instance close scrutiny of the annual reports for this period and indeed the appearance of these agencies before committee hearings as well as answering questions on notice as they related to the performance in the 2019–20 year. The participation of agencies in these hearings has been greatly appreciated, including for the reasons that I referred to earlier of the interruption and disruption occasioned by the pandemic and limitations on ordinary work processes and methodologies during this time.

I would definitely recommend this report to anybody who is interested in, firstly, understanding more about the way in which Victoria’s integrity system operates and, secondly, the work associated with these agencies in the functions that they are charged to deliver under their legislative remits and the way in which reviews are undertaken, the way in which decisions are made and the way in which work plans and other priorities are developed and delivered. This includes, obviously, education and training resources, the preventative mechanisms that are inherent in the role of changing culture and improving the way in which integrity issues are understood and indeed acted upon in the event of any actual or apparent breach of those obligations as they exist around the appropriate conduct of officers throughout our system. I commend the report to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

Auditor-General’s Reports on—

the Annual Financial Report of the State of Victoria: 2020–21, November 2021 (Ordered to be published).

Supplying and Using Recycled Water, November 2021 (Ordered to be published).

Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule No. 129.

Business of the house

Notices

Notice of motion given.

Notices of intention to make a statement given.

Temporary orders

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (09:50): I move, by leave:

That the temporary order agreed to on 7 September 2021 relating to ringing the bells when a member is not in the chamber when called on be rescinded, effective immediately.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

Chhath Puja

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (09:50): Many people of Hindu faith observed the Chhath Puja on 10 November 2021. Chhath Puja is an ancient Hindu Vedic festival dedicated to the Lord Surya, the sun deity. The sun is the basis of all life’s creatures on this beautiful earth, and through this festival devotees thank the sun. People pray to Lord Surya, thanking him for bestowing the bounties of life onto them. They also seek blessings and ask for continued showering of abundance. Indians from the states of Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh, along with the Nepalese community, celebrate this festival with much enthusiasm. Celebrated after Diwali, Chhath Puja is observed over four days. When celebrating, devotees fast for 36 hours without drinking water or eating food. Devotees clean their homes and their surroundings thoroughly. They also take holy baths in rivers and lakes. On the final day of the festival devotees pray to the rising sun, standing with their feet dipped in the water, concluding their fast. Several legends are associated with the origin of Chhath Puja, many found in ancient Hindu texts. It is one of the oldest festivals celebrated in the Hindu religion. It is a very unique expression of acknowledgement towards the sun. It strengthens our relationship with Mother Nature. Our environment is very fragile, and we have to make sure that we preserve it. I wish all those who celebrate it a happy Chhath Puja. I pray that all your families are blessed with years of joy, peace, love and prosperity.

Sonac

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (09:52): Western Victoria is home to many innovative and entrepreneurial businesses. Recently I had the pleasure of touring Sonac’s facility outside Maryborough, courtesy of managing director Simon Cox. Employing over 30 full-time-equivalent staff, Sonac deals in blood protein processing, extracting plasma powder and haemoglobin powder from what would otherwise be abattoir waste and providing an invaluable and highly sustainable service to the livestock industry. Sonac is a critical element of the Darling Ingredients global network, which processes 10 per cent of the world’s animal by-products and produces critical material for numerous industries, such as collagen for the health and beauty industry, nutritional additives for the pet food industry and feed for aquaculture. Despite facing difficulties with COVID workforce restrictions, sea freight costs and internet infrastructure, like many other rural businesses, Sonac is poised to embark on a significant expansion of its Maryborough facility, with an application currently before council. I congratulate Simon and his team on their incredibly well run facility and the contributions they are making to the local area and the agriculture sector more widely.

Cleo Smith

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:53): ‘My name is Cleo’—the four magic words that brought smiles to our faces, goosebumps to our skin and relief to our hearts. After 18 long days Cleo was reunited safely into the arms of her family. I would like to take the time to recognise the hardworking individuals who worked tirelessly around the clock both in front of and behind the scenes to ensure this reunification could take place. To the SES volunteers who spent days trailing the infamous campsite and surroundings, I thank you. I thank the entire Western Australian police force, particularly the four detectives who broke down the door to find Cleo: Detective Senior Constable Kurt Ford, Detective Senior Sergeant Cameron Blaine, Detective Senior Constable Drew Masterson and Detective Sergeant Jason Hutchinson. Finally I want to thank the wonderful community of Carnarvon, who never gave up hope. I wish Cleo and her family the peace they need to heal as well as the privacy they deserve when seeking justice and closure.

Tula

Mr GRIMLEY: On another matter, Tula, the famous penguin-protecting maremma dog from the massively successful film Oddball, has sadly passed away at the age of 13 after serving eight seasons on Warrnambool’s Middle Island in south-west Victoria. Tula and her sister Eudy were the first dogs to be specifically trained to protect the penguin colony after fox attacks nearly wiped it out. Maremmas have been watching over the island’s penguins since 2006, when the population was reduced to less than 10. Tula died five months after her sister Eudy. Her ashes will be scattered during a public memorial on Middle Island. May Tula rest in peace.

COVID-19

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:55): I was recently made aware of a serious lapse in the federal government’s duty of care to the 45 refugees and asylum seekers held at the quarantine facility at the Park Hotel in Carlton. This issue is of particular concern as 21 of the 45 detainees were infected with COVID-19 and one person was hospitalised over the past few weeks. The implications of this could endanger not only the health of the detainees but also public safety and the economic recovery of Victoria.

In fact it has been reported that many detainees are unvaccinated and there is only one nurse caring for the 45 vulnerable men. Indeed many of them have underlying health conditions which make them susceptible to COVID-19, such as heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure. Therefore I implore the federal government to move those who are COVID positive to a more suitable and safer quarantine facility that can provide the appropriate medical care, services and provision to those in need.

I also compel the federal government to ensure all hotel quarantine workers at the Park Hotel are fully vaccinated, suitably trained and understand their obligation to work strictly within the parameters of the Victorian COVID health and safety requirements. It is time to hold the federal government to account and provide a safe quarantine facility for those refugees and asylum seekers who have nowhere else to turn.

Trans Awareness Week

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:56): This week is Trans Awareness Week, a week to celebrate the lives and achievements of our amazing trans community, people such as Sally Conning; Sage Akouri; Sally Goldner; Mama Alto; the amazing Brenda Appleton; Georgie Stone, OAM; and so many more. I pay tribute to an incredible trans ally, Merrin Wake, the unbeatable, unbendable mumasaurus. We celebrate the work of Transgender Victoria, of Transfamily and of Transcend, and of Joy FM for always being at the forefront of defending and promoting our LGBTIQA+ community. Despite how far we have come, we are daily reminded of how far there is to go. With her permission I draw attention to a brave but continually persecuted trans woman, Dani Laidley, and how she continues to fight bigotry with grace. Dani, we see you, we love you, you are supported. To my own beautiful adult trans children, I love you. I know things are tough right now, but you are so incredibly strong and the two people I am most proud of in my life. Happy Trans Awareness Week to all.

TAFE funding

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:58): I rise to give a members statement and express my appreciation and gratitude that the Victorian government is making even more free TAFE courses available to Victorians so they can participate in more education, skills and training. I am really pleased to be able to update the house on the following courses that will be added to the free TAFE list for 2022: excitingly, certificate IV in veterinary nursing, certificate IV in leisure and health, certificate III in information technology, certificate IV in training and assessment, certificate III in supply chain operations, certificate IV in work health and safety and certificate IV in outdoor leadership. As I said, these courses will be added to the free TAFE list, which will in fact bring the total number of courses to 60.

I am really pleased that the government has made this investment in the Victorian public, and I know that people in my own region, the Eastern Metropolitan Region, will no doubt be able to participate in this wonderful training. I very much look forward to continuing to talk to constituents in my region about the benefits of attending free TAFE and all the wonderful jobs that are out there that people will be able to access. I know the certificate IV in vet nursing will be very well received. There are a number of people who are looking to retrain, and I know a number of people in my region, in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, share my love of animals and concern for animals, so this will be a wonderful pathway for them to get involved in a profession that they really love.

Ross Reserve all-abilities play space

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:00): The Ross Reserve all-abilities play space in Noble Park has now been officially opened by Premier Daniel Andrews and Minister Ros Spence. Located between the Noble Park Community Centre and the Noble Park Aquatic Centre, this inclusive playground successfully brings together the concepts of access, participation, equity and dignity to all users, ensuring everyone has the ability to play and choose how they engage and challenge themselves physically, mentally and socially, regardless of their age or abilities.

The playground was developed by the City of Greater Dandenong in partnership with the Andrews Labor government, who provided significant funding through the Local Sports Infrastructure Fund, Community Support Fund and suburban revitalisation program. Key features include a double-run flying fox, featuring an accessible harness seat for all users; four in-ground trampolines, including an inclusive one; an accessible ramp, including slides, tunnels, two basket swings and climbing nets; a tower with three giant slides; a lookout and an enclosed rope net bridge; a five-bay swing frame, including an infant seat, combined infant and adult seat, adult harness seat and two sling seats; a Liberty Swing for wheelchairs; an accessible sandpit with shade sails; sensory play elements, including musical instruments; and toilets, shelters, barbecues and a picnic area. It is fully accessible with a circuit concrete path, is fully fenced, includes seating throughout and has a large grassed area for picnics.

As the chair of the Noble Park Revitalisation Board, I am thrilled that we are investing in community spaces like this that will make these much-loved areas even better and safer for our community to come together. The board has already made other significant investments in the Noble Park activity centre which will bring the community together and build on Noble Park’s sense of community spirit and much-loved village character, and I will have more to say about these new initiatives soon.

Remembrance Day

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:01): Last Thursday marked the 103rd anniversary of the end of World War I. At ceremonies across Victoria we remembered the service and sacrifice of over 330 000 Australians who served during the war. I had the privilege of laying a wreath at the Beaumaris cenotaph during the remembrance service organised by the Beaumaris RSL sub-branch. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Cr Clarke Martin; John Douglas, OAM; Mairi McIntosh, OAM; and the entire sub-branch for their efforts in ensuring commemorative services took place this year. The spirit of remembrance was on full display. It was heartening to see the considerable turnout from the local community in Beaumaris, including students from the local schools and veterans as well as representatives from local, state and federal levels. Remembrance Day gives us an important opportunity to reflect on, honour and remember all those Australians who served during World War I and the more than 60 000 who died. Lest we forget.

United Workers Union

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:02): Recently I had the privilege of meeting with members of the United Workers Union working in the security industry as part of their union Safeguard campaign to win better jobs. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the essential work that security guards undertake to ensure the safety of our community, and after hearing from Ahmed, Rob, Adi, Sami and Mohamed about their experiences in their workplaces, it was evident that change is much needed in the industry. I would like to make special mention of Mohamed, a constituent of mine living in the public housing in Carlton. Despite working full time as a security guard he still cannot afford to move out of public housing and was at pains to tell me about his ambition to do so. It is not right that a security guard is forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet while not being provided adequate PPE to ensure they and others are kept safe. Better jobs are only won by workers joining the union, and I applaud the United Workers Union for all they have done for security guards. It really does pay to be union.

I am proud to be part of the Andrews Labor government, because we are committed to putting workers front and centre in our recovery from the global coronavirus pandemic with an unprecedented investment in job creation and employment across all of Victoria. As someone who has worked for the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, a predecessor of the United Workers Union as they are known today, I know all too well the incredible work of the UWU, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this and many other campaigns to ensure safety in our community.

Sandra Huggins

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:04): Today I rise to celebrate, to recognise and to indeed pay my respects to one of the very best Gippslanders I have ever had the privilege of meeting and of knowing. Sandra Huggins was the manager of the general store at Nowa Nowa. She was the heart of her community, and she welcomed visitors and supported locals in some of the most extraordinary times, challenges, disasters and joys that East Gippsland has ever known. Sandra was friendly and warm. She was a strident advocate for her community, and it was with a great deal of grief and indeed dismay, loss and so much sadness that we learned of Sandra’s passing a couple of weeks ago. I want to place on the record my love and respect for Sandra and I also want to give much love to Greg, Kristen, Jeremy, Sam, Inca and everyone who knew and loved her. We are better for her contribution. We will miss her enormously.

Trans Awareness Week

Ms SHING: On another matter I wish to note that this week is Trans Awareness Week, culminating in the Trans Day of Remembrance on Saturday. We come together to pledge to do more for our trans friends, for all of the folk who suffer, who triumph and indeed who want to live the lives that best give effect and respect to who it is that they are. Our work goes on. My love goes to everyone who is celebrating and possibly hurting this week in particular.

Motions

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:06): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s (IBAC) investigation into allegations of serious corrupt conduct involving Victorian public officers, including members of Parliament, is known as Operation Watts;

(b) at the public hearing held on 1 November 2021, the Counsel assisting, Mr Chris Carr, SC, stated that lawyers for IBAC had requested documents from the Australian Labor Party (ALP), including a statement addressing various issues, but had been rebuffed;

(2) further notes that Mr Carr commented in the public hearing that ‘Unfortunately, so far the solicitors for the Victorian Branch of the ALP have declined the request to provide that assistance. The issue will be further pursued by the solicitors on behalf of IBAC in the coming days, and it is to be hoped that the Victorian Branch of the ALP will cooperate by providing such information voluntarily. However, obviously, if that voluntary process is not productive, it will be necessary for such evidence to be obtained through compulsory processes …’;

(3) calls on the ALP Victorian branch to cooperate fully with IBAC’s requests; and

(4) further calls on the Premier, the Honourable Daniel Andrews, MP, to instruct the ALP Victorian branch to provide all requested documents expeditiously to IBAC.

Through the processes currently underway at IBAC all Victorians have heard a whole range of very serious matters being aired. Whilst I think sometimes the public can be of a mind to think that in cases, for example, of branch stacking, which is not well understood, ‘Well, a pox on both your houses’, the matters that have been aired at IBAC are very serious and they are not normal in functioning political parties. The matters that have been raised include of course branch stacking, forgery, misuse of public funds and nepotism to name just a few.

Here in Victoria for a long time many members of the public and certainly many members of the political class looked on at events to our north in New South Wales and in Queensland, under both Labor administrations and conservative administrations, aghast as we saw corruption run rife. We felt—certainly I felt personally—very proud that in our jurisdiction no matter who was in government there were high standards of probity and corrupt conduct was never tolerated.

What is occurring at IBAC and what we are learning through the IBAC process undermines to a great extent the confidence that Victorians can have in their government. The Victorian people elected the Andrews Labor government at the last election, and my very strong view is that the Victorian people do not get these things wrong. They elected their government, and they have a right to a government that is open, that is transparent and that engages in good government and fair conduct. But already through the admissions of numerous senior Labor sources we know that on far too many occasions that has not been the case.

Numerous senior sources within the Victorian branch of the ALP have themselves admitted, and in doing so incriminated themselves, dreadful conduct, appalling conduct—like I said, forgery, misuse of public funds and nepotism. But there are many allegations that still need to be tested and there is much more information that IBAC needs to gather. That is why counsel assisting has asked for the assistance of the Victorian branch of the ALP and for a series of documents.

It is in the best interests of members of the government, in my view, to participate openly and voluntarily with this process. It is in all of our interests for confidence to be restored in our government, especially at a time such as this. Of course we had a heated debate yesterday; we will re-engage, I am sure, in again a heated debate tomorrow about the government’s pandemic legislation. At all times Victorian citizens have a right to know that their government is not crooked, that their government is one that engages in activities in a way that is fair, open, transparent and proper.

I would mount the case, however, that at times like this, where the government has extraordinary powers at its disposal and over the course of the last 18 months has used those powers—in many instances in a manner which we on this side of the house have supported, and yes, in some instances in a manner which we have opposed—it is so critical for the people of Victoria to have confidence in their government. They simply cannot at the moment when so many senior figures within the ALP have admitted very serious wrongdoing, incriminating themselves in the process, and when question marks hang over the conduct of so many others.

Now, there has been some discussion about whether or not historical processes will be revisited, in particular regarding the so-called red shirts affair. I would counsel my friends and colleagues opposite through the experience there that it is the right thing to do to cooperate fully with IBAC. I will quote again just quickly before coming more directly to the comments of Mr Carr. He said the issue of requests for documentation from the Victorian branch of the ALP:

… will be further pursued by the solicitors on behalf of IBAC in the coming days, and it is to be hoped that the Victorian Branch of the ALP will cooperate …

Of course it is to be hoped that the Victorian branch of the ALP will cooperate. I look forward to some form of justification from those opposite for their current non-cooperation.

Ms Symes: You don’t know that.

Dr BACH: The Attorney-General interjects to say that I do not know that. Well, in that case I look forward to confirmation from members of the ALP.

Ms Symes: I don’t know that either. It would be inappropriate for me to know.

Dr BACH: I look forward to IBAC having access to the full range of documents that it has sought, because Mr Carr has already flagged that if these documents are not produced, then IBAC will need to go down a compulsory route.

Ms Symes: Maybe they have, maybe they haven’t.

Dr BACH: Well, the Attorney continues to interject, and I will pick up her interjection. She said, ‘I don’t know if the Victorian branch of the ALP has not cooperated with IBAC’. Well, what I do know is that at the time that Mr Carr made his remarks there had been non-cooperation. He said, for the benefit of the Attorney and those opposite:

Unfortunately, so far the solicitors for the Victorian Branch of the ALP have declined the request …

If the Victorian branch of the ALP have collectively had a change of heart, then I would welcome that and applaud them for that—if that is the case, but I do not know that to be the case.

Ms Symes interjected.

Dr BACH: ‘Neither do I’, says the Attorney. Fine. But I would be pleased to learn, and I think the Victorian people would be pleased and gratified to learn, that the position of the Premier and that the position of the Victorian branch of the ALP is that it is the right and proper thing to do to cooperate fully with IBAC. That is my view. It is the view of my colleagues. What has happened in Victoria is not a normal thing to have occurred in the hurly-burly of politics. While, as I say, the ins and outs of branch stacking I think potentially are of limited interest to the Victorian people, forgery—a serious matter under the Crimes Act 1958—is of manifest interest to the Victorian people. The misuse of public moneys is of manifest interest to the Victorian people. Nepotism is of manifest interest to the Victorian people. All of these serious matters have been admitted to by senior figures within the ALP.

Thus, it is critical for the operation of good government, for confidence in our government as we move forward, for the Victorian branch of the ALP to do the right thing, something that it did not do in the past in matters not dissimilar to this regarding the proven misuse of public money through the red shirts affair, and that is to cooperate fully with IBAC. The motion before the house is a simple and a straightforward one. I look forward to the discussion, and I look forward to the support of those opposite for what is an important motion on a matter of much import to the Victorian people.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:16): Right. The fact that the Liberals would put up a motion like this shows that they are more interested in playing politics, frankly, with integrity than acting with integrity and leaving IBAC to do its work. IBAC investigations are conducted independently. There is a process which must take place, and that process is a matter for IBAC. In relation to this investigation, that process has not yet concluded. Government has a role in providing IBAC with funding to do its work, and that is exactly what the government has done.

IBAC has the resources to investigate corrupt conduct and fulfil its statutory obligations. Our reforms have given IBAC budget independence from 1 July 2020. As part of the 2021–22 Victorian state budget IBAC was provided with $14 million over five years. An additional $7 million has been provided under a Treasurer’s advance, taking the total to over $20 million. This is on top of funding provided in the 2020–21 budget of a $27.1 million investment over four years, which at the time was a 20 per cent increase on the original base budget.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:18): Acting President, you will have to excuse the laughter that you heard when Ms Taylor rose and accused the opposition of playing politics, because if anybody plays politics in this place, it is the Premier. Everything he does is about politics. Do not worry about the public good. Do not worry about what is right or wrong, just what is good for his political survival and indeed political advancement. That is what we have come to expect from him, and he always delivers.

The Andrews government is coming up to almost eight years in office, and after eight years the level of public confidence in our system, the level of public confidence in politicians, is at rock bottom. I do not recall it ever being so low. That has a huge amount to do with the activities of this Labor government. The general view in the community is that the Andrews government is putrid. It is putrid, or, as somebody said to me this morning, rancid—I think that is probably a good word. Either way the majority of Victorians see the Andrews government and believe that it stinks to high heaven.

We have seen a situation over recent years where corruption and the Victorian ALP have become synonymous. You cannot separate them. You cannot have one without the other, a bit like love and marriage, as they say. You have Victorian Labor, you have corruption; you have corruption, you have Victorian Labor. That is just the way it is.

Before we get to IBAC, let us have a look at some of the incidents that they have been involved in of recent years. The red shirt rorts scandal, where they ripped off the Victorian taxpayer and then spent a million taxpayer dollars to try to stop the Ombudsman. They actually took it to the High Court to try and stop the Ombudsman investigating what they had done, and of course that was part of their campaign to get themselves elected in 2014. They have been crooked from day one. In fact they have been crooked since before day one, and that is indisputable. There is no doubt that people would accept that the length and breadth of Victoria.

When there was an investigation and the Ombudsman raised her concerns, and rightly so, after the High Court battle to stop her by a government that is very, very keen to cover up what it has done, what the Ombudsman discovered was that we have a government that is not on the up and up. Just to prove that, when the police investigated this matter members of the ALP, members of this house and members of the other house, refused to cooperate with the police. Now, I have to say to you that there is only one reason, in my view, that you would refuse to cooperate with police in a police investigation, and that is if you are guilty, if you have got something to hide. That is the only reason that you would refuse to cooperate with the police.

Ms Symes interjected.

Mr FINN: The Attorney-General has found her voice all of a sudden, and it does not surprise me that the Attorney-General has found her voice because she knows that her government is guilty. She is aware of what has happened within her government and she is aware of the cover-ups in her government. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Attorney-General, but the fact of the matter is that it may well be that she is aware of the cover-ups that are still going on within her government.

We have seen the refusal of ALP members to cooperate with the police, and—this was in the ALP’s own organ, the Age—they announced just last week that police command has been involved in covering up for the ALP. How far does this corruption go? You have got to ask, and I think there is an increasing number of Victorians asking that very question: just how far does the corruption in Victoria go? This is something that I am sure will come out in the fullness of time, and I am quite looking forward to that.

Last year we had the quarantine inquiry, which was designed to prevent us getting to the truth, and it did that quite successfully—very successfully. We had the Premier, we had various ministers get up—

Ms Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, whilst I have become somewhat desensitised to the dulcet tones of Mr Finn, on my way out my point of order would be that he is making a contribution that is very far ranging and not relevant to the specific motion, which is pretty clear on what we are supposed to be talking about.

Mr FINN: On the point of order, Acting President, the fact of the matter is that corruption is central to this particular debate, and that is what I am talking about. I can fully understand why the Attorney is sensitive. I can fully understand why the Attorney-General is trying to shut me down, just like she has tried to shut everyone else down, but on this occasion she is wrong. On this occasion she is totally wrong: I am very much debating the issue at hand.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn, you are debating right now, but I just ask for the 3 minutes that you have left that we stick to the points of the motion.

Mr FINN: Okay. Well, look, we will do that. We will do that because we do not want to talk about what happened at the quarantine inquiry. I can understand why the Attorney-General is heading for the door. I would be ashamed of what she has just done, too. But anyway, that is just par for the course with the Victorian ALP, isn’t it—just par for the course for the way that it operates.

We have seen over recent weeks at the IBAC inquiry a theme develop very, very quickly that has been strengthened enormously over the last couple of weeks, particularly by Mr Somyurek, of a culture within the Victorian ALP which is quite disgraceful. Interestingly enough, there is only one side of the ALP that seems to be involved in this culture. I find that very hard to believe. I find it very, very hard to believe that it is only the Labor right that is involved in the branch stacking and the dirty deals and looking after staff and family members of other people. I find it very hard to believe that the Premier’s own faction has apparently never been involved in any of that. Well, Mr Leane, who is a man of the world, knows what is going on and has been going on in the ALP. He knows they have been at it for years. If the Labor right has been branch stacking, they need to have been branch stacking against somebody. I mean, you just do not branch stack against yourself. So I am looking forward to Mr Leane’s contribution on this, I really am.

We have seen over recent weeks at the IBAC inquiry a definite trend that became apparent very, very quickly that there is a culture of corruption within the Victorian Labor Party, and that is something that we need to fully expose. If we want to regain the confidence—and I say ‘we’ as a member of the system, as it were—of the public, of the community, then we have to expose fully this culture of corruption that the ALP has and remove it, destroy it. It is a cancer within our system, and there is only one way to treat a cancer, and that is to cut it out. That is what we have to do with this culture that the ALP has brought to government—that the Premier has brought to government—because we cannot have a situation where members of this government, leaders of this government, are just all about themselves and to hell with the rest of the community.

Motion agreed to.

West Gate Tunnel

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That this house:

(1) notes the material released in August 2021 by Transurban on the West Gate Tunnel (WGT) Project to investors, including that:

(a) tunnelling has not commenced as a result of disputes arising between the project parties;

(b) project completion in 2023 is no longer achievable and, due to continued uncertainty in relation to the resolution of commercial matters and timing for commencement of tunnelling, a further update on the expected project completion date cannot be provided at this stage;

(c) the contracted total cost of the project was $6.7 billion, with estimates of additional costs to complete the project differing among project parties and remaining uncertain; however, based on preliminary independent analysis, Transurban estimates the D&C subcontractors’ construction costs could increase by $3.3 billion, with the D&C subcontractors’ claims being higher;

(d) in order to reach a commercial settlement, Transurban believes all project parties would be required to make a meaningful financial contribution;

(2) further notes the WGT Project, a Transurban market-led proposal, was signed in December 2017 and was subject to a report by the Victorian Auditor-General;

(3) further notes the mismanagement of the WGT Project by the Andrews Labor government, a project that is now late, over budget and the subject of legal dispute;

(4) insists that the state government pay no more than the contracted amount and not further extend any toll concession; and

(5) calls for a pause on the collection of WGT-related tolls levied on existing CityLink roads.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:29): We know that the West Gate Tunnel Project is a vital piece of infrastructure for Victoria, and it will take 9300 trucks off local roads in the inner west every day, slash travel times from the western CBD and provide people with an alternative to the West Gate Bridge. And that is very meaningful for people in the west, something those opposite obviously have not considered in depth, because we are actually looking out for the interests of those in the west.

Now, I am not resiling from the fact that this project does face some considerable challenges, including a serious contractual dispute between Transurban and its builders. The government has been working in good faith with Transurban and CPB and John Holland to help them resolve their dispute. It goes without saying that big projects throw up challenges. Who knew? Those of us on this side of the house know that we do not run away from challenges. You do not put things in the too-hard basket. You get in, you solve the problems and you get it done. That is how it works on our side of the fence, and that is why we have so successfully implemented so many major infrastructure projects that have an absolute and measured benefit for the community.

Contrast that with those opposite, who sat around and did nothing in their last term in government—they achieved nothing, not a single major transport infrastructure project. Can you see where I am going with this? And now they oppose every single major project currently underway in this state. It is on record, true to form—we can predict it. They are so predictable, those opposite. Any time that we are driving forward a critical major infrastructure project, guess who turns up to try to block it, irrespective of the jobs that they might threaten or the people in the community who are undermined in terms of their ability to get around our great city in an efficient, safe and effective way?

But there is no project that gets more deeply under the skin than the West Gate Tunnel project, because of the community it serves. We put that to you. By my count this is the fifth time Mr Davis has used this Parliament to try to cancel this project. I am putting it out there: he has form on this. Five times he has tried to cancel it. You would think he would have learned after the first one. But no, he came back again for a second and third and fourth and fifth go, and gee it is working out well, isn’t it, really? It does not reflect well. It sends a signal about why. What is underpinning this? This is all political. It is nothing to do with serving the better interests of the people out west.

Mr Gepp interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: There is another very valid point. That is right. He would be caught up immediately on these ridiculous, ridiculous motions, trying to shut down legitimate major infrastructure projects that drive the economy and provide lots of jobs for the Victorian community. He knows that what he is proposing today is not a light touch, a rap over the knuckles for a recalcitrant contractor; it is the cancellation of a contract to build a project that the community wants. The community wants this project. They voted for this project, right? It is backed by the community, so let us get on with it.

The West Gate Tunnel is an essential project for Victoria. It is an essential project for Victoria. When complete, what will it bring? It will cut 20 minutes off a trip to the city from the west—places like Point Cook, Tarneit, Geelong, Melton and Ballarat. Yes, 20 minutes—fabulous. We know in the mornings when you are in a rush to get to work, getting an extra 20 minutes is going to be very, very meaningful to people in the west, particularly in places like Point Cook, Tarneit, Geelong, Melton and Ballarat. It will take 5000 cars a day out of the south of the city, relieving congestion—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: You most certainly would not, based on what you do not do, because the story is about all that you do not do and have not achieved and that you do not want us to talk about, but thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk once again about our major infrastructure projects. We are happy to share good news with the Victorian community, because it will take 5000 cars a day out of the south of the city, relieving congestion on King Street and Spencer Street. It will take 9300 trucks a day—get that, 9300 trucks a day; I think the community likes this; I am thinking this is a pretty good thing; yes, I am thinking they like that—off residential streets with 24/7 truck bans, giving local streets back to local residents in the inner west. It will ease traffic on the West Gate Bridge by removing—get this—28 000 vehicles and 8000 trucks. Just think about that. If we do the math on that—well, we do not really have to do the math. It is pretty clear, isn’t it? It is pretty evident why that would be of significant benefit for those who have to commute via the West Gate Bridge.

Mr Gepp: Why would you oppose it?

Ms TAYLOR: Why would you? Exactly, to your point. I don’t know. We are still trying to find a good reason; there is not a good reason to oppose it, only a bad one.

It will improve traffic flow on the West Gate Freeway and deliver better noise walls for local residents, and that is important too. We know those noise walls are significant in terms of buffering the unintended consequences of commutes from day to day. It will give producers in the west of the state a more efficient connection to the port of Melbourne, a very busy one indeed, so that has got to be helpful as well, I would have thought. And we know that when the West Gate stops, the city stops. A crash on the West Gate in the peak is felt right down the Monash. When the West Gate Tunnel opens, we will have an alternative, and I think that is only fair.

There are already more than 3000 people—we do not have to do the math on that—working on the West Gate Tunnel. I would love to see the rebuttal to that: ‘Oh, no, we don’t want 3000 people in jobs working on the West Gate Tunnel. That’s terrible’. It is not terrible, is it? It is actually a positive; it is a net positive.

Mr Gepp: This bloke’s our alternative Treasurer.

Ms TAYLOR: Yes, okay. Let’s see him do the math on that.

Mr Gepp: And the alternative opposition leader. He’s auditioning now.

Ms TAYLOR: Exactly. Who knew? And the project is set to create 6000 jobs. So the potential member for Kew, maybe, if he goes down that path, might have to consider that. Is he just going to crash those 6000 jobs, or is he going to let them continue? I do not know. Let us think about it.

That is in addition to the very significant benefits the West Gate Tunnel will deliver for our transport network and our economy as well, which is particularly important. We are coming out of a very difficult period. Driving the economy forward is critical. The project is also delivering massive benefits to the local community and improving safety by reducing truck traffic in local streets. I have already explained that in depth, because the numbers speak for themselves.

Mr Gepp: 36 000.

Ms TAYLOR: Yes, huge. It is delivering new and better noise walls along the West Gate Freeway, providing 9 hectares of open space throughout the west and 14 kilometres of new and upgraded cycling and pedestrian paths. This gets me really excited. I know there is a strong will across the community—not just out west, across the broader Victorian community—with more and more people wanting to have low-carbon travel, and so it is really providing those safe alternatives for people to be able to travel by bike.

Mr Gepp: If it hasn’t got an exhaust pipe, David Davis won’t like it.

Ms TAYLOR: Okay, that’s a fair call. But we know what the community wants. They voted for this, and we are delivering. So there will be cycling and pedestrian paths. I like walking myself; who does not like a nice walk and having a nice, safe pathway that is facilitated as part of a major infrastructure project, which those opposite seem to have an allergy to—I think it is an allergic reaction almost. We are delivering. Very, very importantly, over 17 000 native and indigenous shrubs and grasses will be planted in the inner west, and I am extraordinarily excited about this. It is only a good story. It is the right thing to do—

Mr Finn: When was the last time you were in the west at all?

Ms TAYLOR: I have actually lived in the west. Would you know, I have lived in the west and I have friends in the west. So just be careful on that question. You might trap yourself there, Mr Finn. On that note I will leave my contribution there.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:40): It is a pleasure to follow Ms Taylor on this matter. And I am a little perplexed, because she said that we are going to all need to be on our bikes or walking. Why on earth do we need a tunnel if we are going to have bike paths and pedestrian footpaths everywhere? Ms Taylor might need to get on her bike on this whole issue, because we clearly do not need a tunnel if we are just going to walk and ride our bike. Mr Gepp, are you normally on your bike?

Mr Gepp interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: Right, okay. I was imagining a pedestrian walkway and native species growing in the tunnel.

Mr Gepp: Mr Davis is on his bike. He’s off to Kew.

Mrs McARTHUR: Mr Davis is always on his bike. It is a wonderful thing, Mr Davis on a bike. There is nothing like it.

Now, look, the mismanagement of this multibillion-dollar project is just symptomatic of how inept this government is. I am sorry, Mr Gepp. You are not quite part of it really. You are down there on the front bench but not quite on the front bench. It seriously is a mismanaged bungle of monumental proportions, the billions overdue, and who would have thought you would want to dig a hole in the ground and not know where you are going to put the dirt? It is just a fundamental rule of those of us that live in the country. We know when we dig up a bit of dirt we have got to have somewhere to put it. This extraordinary project was embarked on with nobody working out where you would put the dreadful toxic waste that is being dug out of the ground for the tunnel. So that has been a major issue.

In my electorate of course I did not want to see toxic waste going in the centre of a fabulous agricultural area where we produce the food. The lettuces you are eating here in the Strangers Corridor have probably all come from Bacchus Marsh, and the strawberries that you love—the strawberry festival is actually on this weekend. And here we are. We were going to pollute the waterways and the agricultural land of Bacchus Marsh. It is metres from a school, a shocking proposal of where we were going to dump this stuff we were going to dig up from the tunnel—and absolutely no consultation. Typical of this government. You cannot consult on anything properly. You tell local government, Mr Leane, the Minister for Local Government over there, and there is a huge amount of bureaucracy involved in local governments having to consult with all the people. Don’t they, Mr Erdogan?

Mr Erdogan interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: He is agreeing. There is a huge amount of consultation that local government—

Mr Leane: Hey, don’t agree with her.

Mrs McARTHUR: He agrees with me, Minister. He does. There is so much consultation required by this government, but this government just refused to consult with anybody themselves. That is the problem, Minister. So we have got a situation where nobody in Mr Finn’s electorate was consulted, nobody in the Western Victoria electorate was consulted. The local governments have had to spend a lot of money fighting them. The EPA lost cases on the matter. These are your government bureaucracies. They cannot even get their permits right. The whole thing is a monumental shambles, and what we are doing is we are making people pay tolls to pay for this thing which has not even got off the ground. It might never get off the ground. How is the soil going in your electorate, Mr Finn?

Mr Finn interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: Building furiously to dump soil in Mr Finn’s electorate, opposite a housing estate. Have you heard anything more ridiculous, Mr Erdogan? I mean, you could not possibly support that in the Southern Metro area and those green leafy suburbs. They would not allow it. I actually have got a really good place for this waste to go, and it is in Mulgrave. What do you think of that, Mr Finn? Would that be a good place? Mulgrave would seem like a perfect location for the toxic waste to be dumped, because still we do not know how much there is, how we are going to be affected healthwise. Nobody knows. There is no consultation. There has probably been more money spent on consultants than what has been put into the road so far. Saving 20 minutes, Ms Taylor suggested—at what cost, we might add. And there were all the jobs that were going to be created.

Mr Gepp, do you know there are just no workers to do the job. I do not know what you wonderful union people have been doing, but the workers just do not seem to be around. In all sorts of areas across my electorate there is a massive shortage of workers. We talk about creating jobs, but there aren’t the workers. But even if there were, what are we building here? We are building something that has not been properly thought through, has not been properly planned. There has been no proper consultation. It is way over—

Mr Gepp interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: Who is on his bike? I am not going to cast aspersions on other people. It is not something I get involved in. Let us keep it nice here, Mr Gepp. It is a terrible situation where we have got a project that is way over budget, way over time—gosh knows when it will be completed. We do not know where all this poison is going to go. I just want to make sure it does not go into the Maddingley tip. I mean, they cannot manage the rubbish that is going into it now. It goes everywhere—drains off into the Parwan Creek, polluting the Werribee River. It is a shocking situation, Mr Gepp, out there.

As for Ms Taylor, I agree with Mr Finn. I do not think she has been out in Bacchus Marsh or Werribee recently.

Mr Finn: In the last 30 or 40 years.

Mrs McARTHUR: Right, okay. A lot has changed in the last 30 or 40 years, Mr Finn, hasn’t it? We have got a project that is going nowhere. The proposal was to drive trucks down an avenue of honour. Every 7 minutes 24 hours a day there was going to be a truck with waste, Mr Leane. A shocking situation for the veterans, Mr Leane.

Mr Gepp: He has fixed it.

Mrs McARTHUR: He has fixed it.

Mr Finn: There are over 800 trucks extra on Sunbury Road every day.

Mrs McARTHUR: Did you hear that? I do not know whether Hansard picked that up, Mr Finn—over 800 trucks a day on Sunbury Road. This is unheard of.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: Through a residential area. That is criminal really. We cannot be allowing this to continue. The government do not care. We have seen that with this pandemic legislation; they do not care about the people. They just want to ram through whatever legislation they think—

Mr Finn interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: Is it really, Mr Finn? The Premier’s pet project, I am told, Mr Gepp, this is. It is obviously failing. Has he got friends in Transurban?

Mr Finn: My word he has.

Mrs McARTHUR: Oh, my goodness me, how about that? Seriously, this is a—

Mr Finn interjected.

Mrs McARTHUR: We might have to have another motion, Mr Finn. We might suggest to Mr Davis another documents motion to establish whether Mr Pallas has still got shares in Transurban. Surely it is a conflict of interest, Mr Finn. Oh, my goodness me, is that going to IBAC? Heavens above. We do have an incredible situation here where this government likes to ram legislation through. They suggest we are going to have projects that are going to create jobs and do all sorts of amazing things, but they cannot deliver. They just waste billions of dollars of taxpayers money in Victoria. And Ms Taylor suggests we will all be very happy because we will be on bikes and we will be walking. Well, good for you, Ms Taylor. Ms Taylor likes carbon neutral. We will all be using candles soon because we cannot possibly have wood fires, gas fires or anything else. They will not embrace nuclear, so we will be down to candles.

Mr Finn: We’re all going to die.

Mrs McARTHUR: We are going to die.

Mr Leane: It sounds romantic.

Mrs McARTHUR: It is romantic. I am with Mr Leane. I like the idea of romanticism. It is candles and bikes that this government is offering up. How would Mr Barton feel if we just resorted to walking, candles and bikes? (Time expired)

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): May I just remind the house what the motion is about. I encourage you to actually look at the motion, and maybe we could keep the debate to the motion.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (10:50): How can I follow that? How about I get to the motion. How about I start by saying that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party wanted to support this motion, but as you may know, we have a general principle of not supporting overly partisan motions and we also do not think that section (5) reflects the best solution to this problem. Not supporting this motion today is unfortunate. As we know, there have been a number of projects, mainly in metropolitan Melbourne, that have gone over time and over budget, and not just by a little bit—we are talking billions of dollars over. To be frank, as regional MPs, this infuriates us. We fight so hard for regional Victoria and we occasionally get the crumbs. The extension of the Overland is a good example of this.

Regional Victoria needs real investment, and in the case of the West Gate Tunnel Project this motion hits the nail on the head. The project is $3.3 billion over budget and will undoubtedly keep climbing. Just to give you an idea of what we could fund with only the cost of the blowout of only one project: we could fund the whole standardisation of the Murray Basin rail project, which would then allow the development of the Ouyen intermodal; we could fund the return of Wimmera rail from Nhill to Ballarat through Horsham; we could fund more services of the Overland, which runs between Melbourne and Adelaide; we could fund the Shepparton bypass; we could provide pocket change of $100 000 for the business case for the Strathbogie shire’s rail precinct; we could upgrade the Horsham railway station, which is in need of urgent TLC; and we could use $19 million to help return passenger rail services to Mildura. I am sure it would help, boosting the coffers, to fund Geelong fast rail as well. This is unfortunately not an exhaustive list, but you get the picture.

Our party is pretty sick of seeing these cost blowouts on projects such as the West Gate Tunnel, the Metro Tunnel, the level crossing removal project and others in metropolitan areas. We do not deny the merits of such projects. It is great the state government have a positive vision for Melbourne, but please stop leaving regional Victoria behind. Just for context, it is estimated that these cost blowouts cost the state around $5 million per day. For comparison, $5 million is what we have been asking the government to commit for a business case for the standardisation of Murray Basin rail. It would match the federal contribution. It is deja vu that we are here. I feel we are constantly talking about this issue and coming to the same conclusion that with the blowouts of metro projects we could fund most of the regional projects that are so desperately needed. In conclusion, we agree with the sentiment of the motion, but due to it being overly partisan and as we disagree with the proposed solution we will not be supporting this motion today.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:53): I am pleased to rise against this motion. I have started to lose count of the amount of times the West Gate Tunnel Project has been discussed and brought on by Mr Davis in this chamber. It is disappointing because those opposite spent a whole four years not building one major infrastructure project. Listening to the previous speakers, I found points of agreement with all of them at some stages. For example, Mrs McArthur talked about bureaucracy and delays, and I said, ‘Yes’. I nodded and I said, ‘There is a big issue here’, and that is why as a government I am proud that we are getting on with the Big Build and we are getting on with level crossing removals. But whenever we do, Mr Davis talks about ‘riding roughshod’ over local communities. Although we are consulting and we are engaging with local communities and the communities are telling us that these projects are needed and we are delivering, we are always told we are riding roughshod, and that is what I do not accept. I do not accept this premise that we do not consult, because we do.

We build much-needed level crossings across Victoria. This is life-changing infrastructure across our state. In the west alone 15 level crossings have been fixed. Mr Finn and Ms Taylor were engaged in an entertaining discussion about visiting the western suburbs. I was there not too long ago, and I saw one of those level crossings as I passed. Ginifer station is one where we got rid of a level crossing which was out there—quite a popular local one out there in the west. But there are a number of others. We are building schools. And, like I said, Mr Davis always talks about ‘riding roughshod’. When we try to streamline and get projects online quickly he says it is ‘riding roughshod’. I do not understand. And then when we say, ‘Okay, we’re going to go at what some may deem a slower pace’, then it is called bureaucracy. Well, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you are riding roughshod when you are streamlining a process but then when you are taking a longer view, a consultation process, say it is a bureaucracy and it is delay. You cannot have it both ways. So, Mrs McArthur, that is my issue. That is my concern.

But this week I realised ‘riding roughshod’ has evolved to ‘chicanery’. Have you heard of chicanery? That is a term that the laypeople use all the time: ‘chicanery’. ‘Chicanery’ is the new term whenever we try to deliver projects. So with critical infrastructure like the Big Housing Build—much-needed public housing—we are told there is a lack of consultation, but when we do consult we are told that there are delays and it is bureaucratic stuff. They look to blame local councils, they look to blame state governments. Obviously they are not going to blame the federal government; they would not do anything wrong, would they? So this is the issue. Obviously, like I said, ‘riding roughshod’ has evolved to ‘chicanery’—chicanery; my apologies for the pronunciation. I may have been influenced by the west.

Nonetheless, like I said, I think this is critical infrastructure that is needed. Mrs McArthur would appreciate it might take 20 minutes off the time of a trip to Geelong in Western Victoria. So I think it is a much-needed project, and obviously we would all like to see it delivered as soon as possible. That is why I am pleased that we are committed to this project.

And the west is beautiful. We are planting trees. You would have seen about the thousands of trees we are committed to building out there. We are making it greener, leaner.

Mr Finn: Building trees?

Mr ERDOGAN: Yes, we are planting trees in the west. This is essential shade. We are improving the air quality in the west. These are the kinds of projects we are working on. And I think Melburnians have spoken. The west has grown by almost a million people in the last decade or so, so that is I think a reflection of the level of investment our government has made. The west has never been as attractive for Melburnians. And this is delivering an essential service. For those people that commute by motor vehicle and trucks, this will be needed.

Mrs McArthur: No, we’re walking and we’re riding bikes, Mr Erdogan.

Mr ERDOGAN: Yes, well, that is work that local councils in the inner west have done. I have seen them—yes, the bike paths and essential works. Actually, maybe pivoting a little, I notice underneath the Upfield line we have built nice bike paths—you know, up north as well. So you can ride your bike. We are providing options—I think that is a better reflection. That is right, for all those here. If you want to ride your bike out, you can ride a bike. There are beautiful bike paths underneath all the sky rail we have built. It is fantastic. It is a beautiful, safe option.

Members interjecting.

Mr ERDOGAN: Yes, that is right. It is a beautiful option. The sky rail looks amazing—all the playgrounds and bike paths and pedestrian pathways. We built all of them, so if you want to ride a bike there is that option. If you want to go by train, we have made improvements to V/Line and made improvements to the metro. It is all happening. But obviously for those who want to use a car, my preferred transport option these days, we are building roads and freeways, so I think that is why this tunnel project is important. Ms Taylor referred to the fact that it might get 5000 cars off even inner Melbourne streets. We are talking about people that will not need to go down King or Spencer streets. It will take 9000 trucks off our residential streets, and there is going to be a 24/7 truck ban along the way to give local residents some relief in the inner west. So I think it is an important project. It will ease traffic across the west, and I know some of the other speakers, such as Mr Melhem, will expand on the work that this government has done out west. So I think I can diverge and get into those a bit more, and I think—

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: Well, I think that is unfair. I think union workers do important work—the dignity. I know some people might thumb their noses, but I believe in a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. So I think it is fair enough that they get rewarded for all their effort. It is hard work and generally, broadly speaking, unsafe work—high-risk work more so; I will not say unsafe, but high-risk work. So it is fair that they pay accordingly for these skilled technicians. We are seeing that there is now an emerging skills shortage, which our government is addressing. We have got record investment in TAFE, and there is a pathway and jobs, record low unemployment—

Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I appreciate that Mr Erdogan is doing his best to fill the time that he has been allocated, but I think to be talking about the payment and allowances of workers in whatever industry he is talking about when he should be in fact talking about the West Gate Tunnel project is a bit beyond the pale. Speaking about a bit beyond the pale, here comes Mr Tarlamis.

Mr Tarlamis: On the point of order, Acting President, this has being a wideranging debate, and it is well within the remit of members on this side to respond to and rebut certain arguments that have been made in members’ contributions.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I might remind Mr Erdogan to at least keep it basically somewhere in the vicinity of being on track. That would be good.

Mr ERDOGAN: I think Mr Tarlamis made an important point. Mrs McArthur, in her contribution to the debate, talked about bureaucracy and delays in government projects. I said that whenever we try to streamline a process the Leader of the Opposition says that we are riding roughshod, and that is my argument. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either we streamline the process and you allow us to get on with these life-changing infrastructure projects, like the West Gate Tunnel project, like the Big Build, like the level crossing removals, or we have broader consultation, which may take more time, and you do not complain about the bureaucracy and delays. You cannot have it both ways, and that is the point about this project that I was making.

But I will get back to some of the specifics of this project. I want to make it clear that the government is engaging in good-faith negotiations to resolve the matter. We want this project built, like everyone else does. The people of the west want it. The people across Melbourne want it. It is a project in the west but I live in Southern Metropolitan—I live in the electorate of Albert Park, around Port Melbourne—and that is the way I would drive to get to the west, right across the West Gate from the Montague Street entrance.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: Mr Barton is agreeing with me. He knows the path that you take.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr ERDOGAN: That is right. That is the path I would take to get to the west. This is a life-changing infrastructure project across the state. I am proud of our government’s record in delivering these projects, remembering that the opposition did not build one single major infrastructure project in four years, so it is very rich of them to come in here and criticise us. It is very rich when we streamline consultation processes to say that we are riding roughshod over the community and now the chicanery, or whatever the term is that has come out this week. There is a new term this week: chicanery—Mr Davis’s new favourite term for whenever we try to streamline process and deliver these life-changing projects. On the point I was making, we are negotiating in good faith. We want to see the project built in as quick a fashion as possible, and I look forward to riding in a motor vehicle over the newly built West Gate Tunnel.

Members interjecting.

Mr ERDOGAN: Over and under.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (11:03): God, you can tell it is Wednesday. It is always entertaining on Wednesday.

A member: We are all overtired, Mr Melhem.

Mr MELHEM: You are right. It was a long night last night, but I am looking forward to tomorrow night where Thursday becomes Friday.

I do not know. I have lost track of how many times we have talked about the West Gate during this Parliament. I reckon about every third sitting week we have a motion—is this by Mr Davis? It is Mr Davis again—about the West Gate Bridge and the West Gate Tunnel—

A member interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Well, there is a bridge and there is going to be a tunnel and it is going to be a wide road. It is going to be a 12-lane road basically which is going to connect the good people of the eastern suburbs, the southern suburbs and the northern suburbs. Everyone will be able to use that beautiful road, including you, Mrs McArthur. You will be using that road to drive home.

Mrs McArthur interjected.

Mr MELHEM: You should look forward to it. We are trying to look after your interests. I know Mr Finn probably will not use that road. He probably goes the other way, going on the Tulla, but it might be an alternative for him to use. Mr Finn, of all people, should be supporting this because it is the western suburbs. It is for our constituents. Our combined constituents are going to benefit from this.

But let me go back to the motion. There is some stuff in the motion I agree with. I think there are some really good points there. It says that the state government will pay no more than the contracted amount and there will be no further extension of any toll concessions. That is fine. There is no argument there, but on the other hand, part of that motion is you want to stop the toll now. Well, the contract is very simple. You build the West Gate Tunnel, whether it is going to cost $6.7 billion or $12 billion, and we whack in the Tullamarine extension, which was obviously being completed under your government when you gave the extension. When you were in government in that period between 2010 and 2014 you did the deal with Transurban to actually—

Mr Finn: You told me that we did not do anything in those four years.

Mr MELHEM: No, that is the only thing you did.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Let me finish. I am going to give you a compliment here. That is the only thing you did, and you did not do it on your own. Transurban came to you and said, ‘Look, we can widen the Tullamarine Freeway for you. So we can do that, but give us an extra year of extension on the tolls’. So when we came into government we combined the two and said, ‘You can have that, plus add the other nine years to do the West Gate project and also include part of CityLink as well’. The Monash Freeway was whacked in as well. So when people talk about extending the tolls being only for the West Gate, it is not. It is the West Gate, it is the Tulla and it is the Monash. It is the whole state of Victoria that is affected by it.

And the West Gate project is not just going to benefit the western suburbs—which is my constituents, and I am very supportive of the project because it is going to make life very easy for my constituents, being able to travel across the city and to the city and so forth—but also it is going to benefit everyone in Victoria. People coming from Gippsland, going to Geelong and beyond to Warrnambool will be able to use that road, particularly when the Monash Freeway widening will now be completed as well. So they will be able to drive in on a long road which has basically got somewhere between four and six lanes all the way from Cranbourne, I think, or Pakenham to Geelong and beyond. That is a wonderful thing. And I get it, Mr Davis got the shits about the east–west link because the eastern suburbs thing was not built first. Well, I am sorry. We got in first.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Mr Melhem, I think you need to be careful about what you are saying.

Mr MELHEM: He cracked it. He cracked it, but members of this government—members of the ALP in the western suburbs, 14 of us—got together and we campaigned hard to make sure the western section was built first. That is great. I give no apology for advocating for our constituents.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Let us not talk about that. Come on, mate. I can only tell you I am looking forward to IBAC coming to look in your closet, Mr Finn and Mr Davis. I am so looking forward to IBAC looking in the closet of the Liberal Party. Let us talk to Mr Sukkar. Let us talk about your branch stacking episode. Come on, do not lecture us about that. God forbid! Especially your faction, Mr Finn. How are you going, by the way? I reckon the only reason Matthew Guy will not knock you off from preselection is that you got heaps of members signed up.

Mr Finn: He’s not.

Mr MELHEM: He is not? That is good. But we like you anyway, Mr Finn. We want you to stay.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Mr Melhem, we are allowing a wideranging debate on this, but can we at least keep it to something close to the tunnel, please?

Mr MELHEM: Now, going back to the actual motion—thank you, Acting President—it:

(4) insists that the state government pay no more than the contracted amount and not further extend any toll concession; and

(5) calls for a pause on the collection of WGT-related tolls levied on existing CityLink roads.

I am a bit confused, and I do not know what this motion is trying to achieve, apart from trying to frustrate development.

Let me give the house a bit of an update about where the project is at as we speak. There has been significant progress on the actual road. You can actually now see how the six lanes will operate past the bridge going towards Geelong. That is not far from completion. If you look at the other side, on the elevated road on Footscray Road, that is taking shape. And the great news is that the tunnel-boring machine process is about to commence. Tunnellers are now in the process of being re-employed. They have started the re-employment process. People are going back on the job. I have forgotten the name of the tunnelling machines. I am pretty sure they have been given some great names, but it will come to me later.

Mr Leane: Being trained in the Holmesglen tunnel school.

Mr MELHEM: Thank you, Minister Leane. That is the other thing. One of the great things about this project is that we have now got a training school to train Australian and Victorian tunnellers, because, guess what, we have got another tunnel to build—the North East Link. We have got the Metro Tunnel, which is going great. It is going to finish ahead of schedule, Mr Leane. There are 10 per cent of workers on this project who are trainees and apprentices and people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I want to commend Minister Allan for her leadership in that space, making sure we are delivering on the Big Build projects throughout Victoria and making sure we are actually using Australian-made products. I think from memory it is around 80 to 90 per cent. That is a record, and we should continue that.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Yes, Mr Finn, we are using Australian steel. There was a small portion early on when the company did not buy Australia steel, but 90 per cent of steel that is used on that project is actually Australian made and actually made in Victoria. It is made in Laverton and Sunshine—the precast. The big employment generated by this project will continue for the next couple of years, and as I said, the pleasing thing is the tunnelling will resume. Indications at this stage are that it looks like resuming in middle to late January. Production will commence, and I am so looking forward to the completion of the project and making sure it is done in a very, very safe manner.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Thank you, Mr Finn, for raising that point. I have got a minute. I will address that. Of course I want to make sure any contaminated soil dug out of the project or any other project in Victoria is handled safely, taking care of the safety of the workers on the project and of commuters when the soil is being transported and also where that is going to be processed to high quality—to make sure it is done safely. All the information I have been getting from the project and various analysts, including independent analysts, is that the soil is safe to handle.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Unlike you, Mr Finn, and your colleagues, who keep driving fear into people. I think you need to stop telling lies. The lies have to stop. They did not work for you in the last election and will not work for you this round. It is time. Stand up straight and start telling the truth and stop making things up and talking crap. I was going to use the other word, but I will not. With these comments, I will be voting against the motion.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:14): Just following up on my colleague Mr Melhem, yes, I agree that the Liberals should stop falling into a trap of fabricating a policy position. I also agree with Mr Melhem that Mr Davis has got the ship. I think we all hope that Mr Davis actually can get over the ship, whatever it is that he has got, because the ship seems to make him get to a point where he just despises major projects and is constantly bringing in motions about perceived problems and generated problems with major projects. I am not sure that this sort of operation from Mr Davis has got him the label of a potential star candidate for Kew, but I would be very surprised if that is the case.

I feel that maybe Mr Davis has aspirations to go to an Assembly seat where there is less activity, less construction activity, less infrastructure activity than the whole state, which he feels he is responsible for as the Leader of the Opposition. He feels like he is responsible for the whole state. If he goes to a sort of smaller Assembly seat, it might help his frame of mind, because I do not think he has ever got over sky rail. I think he needs to get something out of his system about sky rail. He has banged on about sky rail time and time again. It was built and people loved it, they did not get held up at level crossings and they actually were able to walk from one side of the track to the other. It opened up communities, and there were parks. I do not think Mr Davis has actually got over the fact that it was a successful project, so he is looking for different avenues. And now he is stuck on this particular project—the tunnel that is going to be built as a second crossing of the river, along with the West Gate Bridge. I think it is a good idea that there is a second crossing at that point. I reckon a lot of people that come from the west would think, ‘That’s actually a pretty good idea’. I know of even Mr Finn’s frustrations that sometimes the West Gate will jam up and affect his travel into here or wherever else he is going.

Mr Finn: I use the Tulla actually.

Mr LEANE: Well, maybe you are visiting another part of your electorate, Mr Finn.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr LEANE: You might get frustrated. I think Mr Finn might actually start using these crossings more when there are two of them. I think it would be actually quite beneficial for Mr Finn. I think he is secretly willing this project to be finished, because he knows that it will be a great benefit for him and the people out in the west.

Major projects are obviously about the end result, but when we in this government build major projects we make sure there is actually added benefit as far as skills development goes, making sure that people on the priority job seeker list get work and also that social enterprises get a chance to tender for different parts of the project. Mr Melhem mentioned the tunnelling school at Holmesglen. I am not too sure if that is in Mr Tarlamis’s area.

Mr Tarlamis: Just outside.

Mr LEANE: Just outside. For decades and decades and decades Victoria has had to import tunnelling machines, but with the actual crews. There have not been Victorians trained in this type of work. When you add the expense of that, they are not coming cheap—they are specialists coming mainly from European countries—so this government bit the bullet and said, along with Holmesglen TAFE, ‘Let’s actually build a centre of excellence for tunnelling, where men and women, Victorians, are actually able to own these skills’.

Ms Watt interjected.

Mr LEANE: Ms Watt, it is actually well-paid work. It is specialist work, and it is well paid for a number of reasons. But why wouldn’t we have Melburnians and Victorians getting that benefit? We have been flying crews from Italy and from all different parts of Europe—and good luck to those men and women that have had that opportunity to come to the greatest state in the world, Victoria, for work plus a holiday.

Mrs McArthur: They’re all leaving, Mr Leane.

Mr LEANE: Yes, but the crews coming from Europe have had a chance to go to the fantastic areas—everything about Melbourne’s culture, the sporting precinct, the entertainment precinct. When they have been here, they have been so fortunate. Good luck to them. But we want to see Melburnians and Victorians actually get that work, and we are very proud that that is the situation now. And as these people have been trained, they will be around to train other Victorians and Melburnians, so we will never be in the situation again where we have to import these skills.

As Mr Melhem said, there might be some points that have some credit in this particular motion, but I think the issue is Mr Davis’s obsession that drove him to abuse elevated rail in Seaford, South Australia. It is kind of getting to him. He needs to get it through his system; he needs to get it out of his system. And I do not think this is the answer, to just target other major projects; I do not think that is the answer at all. I think he just needs to maybe get on board and be positive about the projects that are being built in Victoria, and actually he might be able to enjoy it. He might be able to enjoy his life. He might be able to enjoy his working life—isn’t it great that all these things are getting built?—and feel some pride in his state. I think it would be good for him. I am a bit concerned that his aspiration is to leave this chamber. I know it has taken him 20 years to become an overnight success and a potential star candidate. Give him another 20 years—imagine what he will be. But I am a bit concerned that if he fails to achieve that preselection in Kew he might be lost to us forever. He might be gone forever.

Ms Crozier: Wishful thinking, Mr Leane.

Mr LEANE: He is very combative, I will give you that, and he has got an eye for some detail.

Mrs McArthur: You can’t talk. You’ve all just been endorsed verbatim—don’t even have to face a challenge.

Mr LEANE: Yes, he might use my lines in his resume for the preselection. I think I will leave it to my colleagues if they want to have a contribution. But once again we appreciate the opportunity to speak on our major projects, because we actually think they make a huge difference.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (11:23): Those are a really challenging few speakers to follow, so I am going to consolidate some thoughts before making a contribution on the West Gate. I thought perhaps I would just speak in some facts and speak in some truths about what is happening, and that is that there are 9000 trucks that will be off residential streets and 24/7 truck bans. Can I just say what that means for people that live in the streets surrounded by heavy trucks and frequent all-hour truck use, as somebody who knows what it is to live in the cheap seats, live in the cheap suburbs, live near the train lines, live near the trucks and the trams: investments like this matter a great deal. The outcomes that they deliver for those communities really impact their lives each and every day, and 24/7 truck bans—it is just extraordinary. So I want to take a moment to shout out to all the folks that are looking forward to a future where they are not having to train their kids how to sleep at night through the truck noise, because that is something no parent wants to have to do. Having quieter roads out there in Melbourne’s west will certainly be of benefit to so very, very many parents, kids and old people, because it is truly not ideal when you are living in the streets and the communities where you are right there on the truck path. So, acknowledgments to that.

Of course included in that is that there are over 9 kilometres of new and replaced noise walls, meaning quieter homes and parks along the West Gate Freeway, as I just said. So that is extraordinary—9 kilometres of replaced and new noise walls. They make a great difference, and you might see them and wonder what they are all about. They do look like some sort of wacky art installation sometimes, I must confess, but honestly, they are about giving health and wellbeing and wellness to the communities right around there. And not only are the communities living right near the West Gate Tunnel going to now enjoy quieter streets, quieter homes and hopefully some quieter nights, there are of course also the health impacts. I look to a factor of around five to one tree replacements, and that being that there are 17 500 trees and hundreds of thousands of shrubs and grasses that will be planted, and that means a lot for communities in Melbourne’s west that do really need some investments in greening up their community—and I do not mean that in the way that it just came out of my mouth. Whoops, there you go. But as my colleague Mr Melhem said, the investment into Melbourne’s west is just extraordinary, and as part of that great investment there are of course more trees to cool down Melbourne’s west in the summer months and also to cool down and knock out some of that noise along the West Gate Tunnel Project. So thank you to the communities for pushing so hard for environmental considerations in this project.

Of course not only will we have a whole bunch of new trees and a quieter community, we are also going to have a lot more open space. As anybody who has visited underneath sky rail, you will see the absolutely extraordinary open space that communities are now enjoying. I know that I have seen basketball courts. I have seen bike tracks. I have seen table tennis tables. I have seen gathering places, playgrounds, tables, chess for the chess lovers. They have taken well to the open spaces right there in the community, and I think there has also been an extraordinary replenishment of some native shrubs and grasses along that area as well, which just looks marvellous, and the communities are really enjoying it. So I look to see what that looks like with 9 hectares of new open space being created by this project and what indeed that will mean for the kids that now can not only sleep at night but have somewhere new and fantastic and healthy to play. So congratulations to the communities for putting up with years of that noise. We are investing in it because we have had quite enough and it is time that we make the vital investments required to not only get 9000 trucks off residential streets and truck bans in our community but get 28 000 vehicles, including 8000 trucks, off the West Gate Bridge and 3500 trucks off the Bolte Bridge and a 13-minute faster trip to the port of Melbourne.

Anyone that knows what is happening around the port of Melbourne knows that is an explosive community full of investment, infrastructure, innovation tech and of course jobs, jobs and more jobs. I think my colleague Ms Taylor knows just how exciting it is around Port Melbourne right now, and of course we have got a very vibrant community happening over there. But of course they are very much supported by members of Melbourne’s west, so they will be coming over to Port Melbourne for all sorts of things, including what I hear is one of the newest and best Woolworths here in the state, as well as some great local footy clubs and some really good innovation, including the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre and other things that exist over in that little pocket of town that bring kids from the west so that they can access the very best opportunities. I am delighted to see that there will be of course 13-minute faster trips for those sports commutes on the weekend and all such things that are going to make a massive difference.

Of course first and foremost, though, we are looking at lives and lives being saved, and a 16 per cent reduction in serious crashes is something not to be overlooked. I must say, as somebody who has had a family member have a horrific accident on the West Gate Bridge and be lucky to survive, it is something that for me stood out as quite a critical outcome of this project. I am absolutely delighted to see some safety initiatives, including the state-of-the-art technology that will be put along this project from the very beginning to the very end of it. That is good stuff if it means that families are thinking about safety and also are a little less worried as their loved ones are travelling on this road.

Of course I could talk about jobs, jobs and more jobs, but I know that one of my colleagues has a contribution to make yet on this. The community right around this project is really thriving and benefiting from it, including from the newly installed pedestrian bridges to connect the communities of Yarraville, Spotswood, Brooklyn and Altona as well as connecting to the busy Federation Trail. It is part of 14 kilometres of new and upgraded walking and cycling paths, providing complete ride-over access with plenty of spaces to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, making it easier for those in Melbourne’s west, many of which will continue that cycle right through over to Docklands and the community there in my region, the Northern Metropolitan Region. There is a lot to reflect on, including active transport, health and wellbeing, some quieter communities, some healthier communities, some fresh investments in some native trees and shrubs of course and 9 hectares of new open space.

I would love to hear what the communities are thinking for that space and what we are going to see from what will no doubt be a very comprehensive community engagement project to make sure that we have got the next generation of basketball courts and table tennis and cycling tracks, places for the old and the young alike to gather and celebrate their communities somewhere close to home, somewhere safe, somewhere cool and of course somewhere that not so long ago they could not have imagined being a possibility for them.

I am really quite pleased to get up here and make a contribution on this tunnel and think about what this will look like. I will be around when it is completed, and I cannot wait to hear more as I, like so many, visit and love the communities in Melbourne’s west.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:33): I also rise to speak on Mr Davis’s West Gate Tunnel general business motion. Like my colleagues on this side of the chamber who have spoken, I really do appreciate just how vital this piece of infrastructure is for Victoria. It is so vital in so many ways. It will take 9300 trucks off the road in the inner west every day, slash travel times from the west to the CBD and provide people with an alternative to the West Gate Bridge. And we all know what happens when the West Gate Bridge, being the only access point across, shuts down—the city shuts down. I do not know how anyone could not support a project that would create a second crossing. I cannot understand that.

It is a very, very important project, and with all big projects they throw up big challenges. Those of us on this side of the house know all about that and we do not run away from challenges. We do not put things in the too-hard basket. We basically get on, get them done and deliver them. That is what we have done. That is what we have been doing. We have got a track record on that, and you just have to look at the infrastructure projects that are going on around Victoria at the moment—those that have been completed, those that are continuing and those that are soon to be completed. It is a pipeline of infrastructure projects that is the envy of many other states, and it is because we have had the vision to set ambitious plans moving forward for these infrastructure projects. Whilst this project is a major benefit to the west and it has been a long time coming for those in the west, the benefits will be felt for many generations to come in the future.

Mr Melhem in his contribution spoke extensively about the fact that although this is a project that is in the west the benefits flow through the state. As with all the infrastructure projects that we have been creating, it creates a linkage throughout the state that gets people around faster, it gets them around safer and it reduces the impact on those who are in the vicinity of those freeways also—and it is done in consultation with the community. We do extensive consultation with the community to deliver these projects, to ensure that we get the best outcomes possible, because you do not get many opportunities to embark on major projects like these that are so important and make such a difference to people’s lives, and it is important that you get it right, because they will be there for future generations to benefit from. That is why there is extensive consultation.

Basically you will see it in many of the different projects. Later this month we will be opening the Mordialloc Freeway, which is going to be a huge benefit to those in the south-east. It is a transformative project that basically has been a long time coming, and the locals are really looking forward to getting on and using that. Basically it has so many other flow-on effects as well.

I spoke about the west. We know that in the west when completed the West Gate Tunnel will cut 20 minutes off a trip to the city from the west. It will take 5000 cars a day out, which will relieve congestion around King Street and Spencer Street. It will take them out of the city. We have spoken about the 9300 trucks per day off residential streets, the 24/7 truck ban and the eased traffic on the West Gate Bridge by removing 28 000 vehicles and 8000 trucks, improving the traffic flow on the West Gate Freeway and delivering better noise walls for local residents.

My colleague Mr Leane also spoke about the significance of the fact that this is yet another tunnelling project that we are doing in Victoria and the fact that because of these projects we have been able to establish things like the tunnel school at Holmesglen, which is training up people to do the current tunnels and any future tunnels as well. They have been doing a tremendous job. Projects like this create a lot of employment. This particular project will actually deliver 500 jobs for apprentices, graduates and trainees. It will be using over 90 per cent local content to build the project. So they are very important projects that have massive flow-on effects for the entire community, and basically that is why we are doing them.

I think this is the fifth time that Mr Davis has brought a motion to this Parliament to try and cancel this project, which would result in thousands of workers being sacked and further gridlock. It would disadvantage people in the west yet again. We are committed to delivering an outcome for people in the west to improve their—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): It is getting quite noisy in here, and Mr Tarlamis is quite softly spoken, so can we have a bit of quiet in here.

Mr TARLAMIS: Thank you, Acting President. It is an important project with lots of flow-on effects for jobs. It delivers for the west, it delivers for the people of the west, and it delivers them the much-needed improvements that they have been waiting for for a very, very long time. I do not see how anyone would want to deprive the west of that, but as I said, the flow-on effects across the state cannot be underestimated as well.

I cannot understand why those opposite would take such a position on this that they would want to stop delivering these benefits for the west and across the state. Basically it could be because they have not experienced many of the challenges that are associated with major infrastructure projects, because they did not build any when they were in government. They do not have issues with soil, because they have never stuck a shovel in the ground to disrupt any soil. They have talked a lot about projects that they might think about doing and making commitments they have not delivered on, but they have never actually done any major infrastructure projects, so I can understand why they do not know how challenging this is. When you look in contrast at what we have been able to do around the state in terms of infrastructure projects, even during the pandemic we have been able to keep these projects going and get them ahead of schedule. It has been a tremendous effort, and it highlights this government’s vision for the future and the fact that they are able to plan so far ahead with these bold plans.

In this debate today they have spoken about the level crossing removals. Now, they are transformative projects which the communities welcome and love. And again, Mr Davis demonised those. He went out and fuelled fear campaigns around those, and basically the communities now that are enjoying the benefits from those are truly amazed by and have embraced them. They have opened up so many more opportunities for communities, and they actually love the projects. So I think Mr Davis might improve his knowledge if he was to actually go out and visit some of these areas and see what has been able to be achieved in these areas because of these level crossing removals. But it appears that yet again they have brought another motion before this place where basically the result—if the West Gate Tunnel was to be cancelled—would lead to not delivering outcomes for the west that are sorely needed, major job losses and basically more disruption on our roads. It appears clear that the closest thing they can get to a tunnel is the tunnel vision they have that is opposed to anything that this government does. No matter how good it is, no matter how many benefits it delivers, you will run fear campaigns against it, you will run scare campaigns against it and you will just purely politic. You do not have the ability to basically build anything, because all you know how to do is wreck things. And frankly we need to call you out for that.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:41): I will sum up quickly. This is a very straightforward motion. There are five parts to it. The first two parts are entirely factual and clearly stating a position of what has actually occurred. It notes the material released in August 2021 by Transurban on the West Gate Tunnel Project to investors. It is through Transurban and the stock market that we learned actually what was happening with the project. The tunnelling has not commenced. The project completion in 2023 is no longer achievable. The contracted total cost was $6.7 billion—that is a fact—with estimates of additional costs to complete the project differing amongst the parties. But it is at least $3.3 billion, and that is what Transurban said to the stock market. We did not hear from the minister or the government, we heard it via the stock market. And there is a dispute with the different subcontractors. In order to reach a commercial settlement Transurban believes, as it told, all parties will be required to make a meaningful financial contribution, including taxpayers through the state government. That is what they said.

The motion further notes that the tunnel project, a Transurban market-led proposal, was signed in December 2017—that is a fact—and was subject to a report, I might say a very negative report, by the Auditor-General. That is a fact. At (3) it further notes the mismanagement of the West Gate Tunnel Project by the current government now that the project is late, over budget and subject to legal matters. No-one can dispute that there are legal proceedings afoot and active at the Supreme Court. No-one can dispute that it is late. That is what Transurban has told the market. No-one can dispute that it is over budget. It is at least $3.3 billion over budget and probably more like $4.5 billion, but those are the facts.

All this motion says is two straightforward points. It insists that the state government pay no more than the contracted amount and not extend any toll concession. The fear is that what the state government will do is it will push the toll up, it will push the toll out and it will hit the commuters and it will hit the truckies—it will clobber them—with extra tolls to pay for its mismanagement. That is my fear, and that is what clause (4) says in this motion. We do not want that. And it calls for a pause on the collection of West Gate Tunnel related tolls levied on existing CityLink roads.

Understand how this project is being funded. There is a contribution from the state government, there is a contribution from Transurban and there is a tolling component. People are going to pay the toll when the road is finished, but they are also paying the toll today. When people drive home tonight over the Bolte Bridge or through the tunnel they are actually going to pay an extra toll to pay for this road that is now years late. They are going to pay the toll. They are going to pay through the nose tonight and in the morning when they come back in. And the small truckies and the taxidrivers are all going to get clobbered by the extra toll, and we are worried that they are going to increase the tolls further to pay for the state government’s mismanagement, Jacinta Allan’s mismanagement, Daniel Andrews’s mismanagement. We say no to the extra tolls and we say there should be a pause on those special extra tolls—the extra tolls that everyone is paying now—for a road that is years late, over budget and subject to a shocking legal dispute. What a complete and utter cocktail of disaster has been created by Daniel Andrews and Jacinta Allan.

This motion is entirely factual except for the two calls: no more tolls to pay for the mismanagement and a pause on the extra tolls that are on the existing CityLink roads. Anyone who votes against this motion is voting in favour of extra tolls for motorists.

Mr Tarlamis: Says who?

Mr DAVIS: That is what I say, Mr Tarlamis. Do you think people should pay— (Time expired)

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 17
Atkinson, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs
Bach, Dr Davis, Mr Ondarchie, Mr
Barton, Mr Finn, Mr Quilty, Mr
Bath, Ms Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr
Bourman, Mr Limbrick, Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr
Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms
Noes, 20
Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr
Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms
Gepp, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms
Grimley, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms
Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms
Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms
Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms

Motion negatived.

Business of the house

Orders of the day

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:53): I move:

That the consideration of order of the day, general business, 2, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Notices of motion

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:53): I move:

That the consideration of notices of motion, general business, 676 and 654, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Sessional orders

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:53): I move:

That until the end of the session, unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the following sessional order come into effect on the next day of meeting:

1. Formal pairing arrangements

After Standing Order 16.06 insert:

The following formal pairing arrangement may take place in addition to any informal pairing arrangement in relation to a division on any question—

(1) a vote pair may be requested and granted between two Members of the crossbench and/or other parties;

(2) a vote pair may be formally recognised only if a division eventuates in relation to the question put;

(3) a vote pair will be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings and Hansard only when both Members that have entered into the vote pair arrangement on a question have notified the Clerk (by email to council@parliament.vic.gov.au), no later than 30 minutes before the vote has occurred in the House or in Committee of the whole, that they have agreed to a vote pair and they did not formally vote on the question; and

(4) any dispute arising, at any time before the Clerk publishes the weekly Minutes of the Proceedings, will be determined by the Clerk who may alter any record of pairs accordingly.

I move this motion on the notice paper that is a result of a number of months of discussion amongst a number of people in this chamber and which formalises or gives some direction on the ability to record pairs throughout divisions in debate. This is a result of discussions we have had about introducing a hybrid sitting model for the chamber to allow members to participate remotely. During those discussions we agreed that there were limitations on members being able to participate and vote fully online, with only the ability to record your voting intention when you participate online. The crossbench are concerned that we do not have a pairing mechanism that would allow us to fully participate should we not be able to attend the chamber in the midst of a pandemic—for example, if we have to isolate because we have been to a COVID exposure site or if unfortunately a member in this chamber contracts COVID themselves and is therefore unable to participate in the chamber for some time.

This proposal before us essentially allows for pairs between the crossbench to occur, with the vote pair being formally recognised if a division eventuates and it being recorded formally in Hansard. This is a voluntary system. It does not compel any member or any party in this chamber to participate in this system. It is an opt-in system for those who engage in pairing. We understand that the government and opposition already have an informal system for pairing members of the government and the opposition.

What we are asking for is the chamber’s willingness to allow this change in sessional orders that would give us guidance and clarity and some sort of formality. Members of the crossbench are not from one party, therefore having this more formal clarity in the sessional orders would really help us bring this system to life. I would like to put forward this motion. I understand that my crossbench colleagues might have some brief contributions to that effect as well.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:55): I too would like to speak to Dr Ratnam’s motion on pairing. This is something that has been missing in this chamber—the ability for the crossbench to have a pairing process—and it became so apparent last year during COVID when we were all at risk of not being able to be in the chamber.

While we introduced, and I welcomed, the ability to contribute remotely, it still cut us out of any pairing arrangement or any way to have our position on a motion or on a bill recorded in this house. I note that that has never been a problem for the two major parties—they have always had a pairing arrangement amongst each other. Okay, it has been fraught. I understand that, and we have certainly seen that. ‘Fraught’ may be an understatement there. But for the crossbench that has not been an option, and this has really weighed heavily on our minds, as I say, particularly during this pandemic when through no fault of our own we could have been in a supermarket that became an infection spot and we would not have been able to be in the chamber and we would not have been able to contribute, nor could we have had our opinion on a position recorded.

This is a really simple, sensible motion. It is largely a motion that just supports what the crossbench will be doing amongst each other, but it also opens up the opportunity for us to reach a pairing arrangement with any party here, including both major parties. I would commend—

A member interjected.

Ms PATTEN: Yes, I would just bring it to a vote. I support this motion.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:58): The motion moved by Dr Ratnam this morning is an interesting one which seeks to, as it is titled, create a formal pairing arrangement. But I guess this motion, from listening to Dr Ratnam and Ms Patten, really strikes me as a misunderstanding as to what a pairing arrangement is actually about. A pairing arrangement is not about recording the voting intentions of the people who are paired. A pairing arrangement, in the way it works across a government and an opposition, is about preserving the numerical difference between the government and the opposition. It is not recording the votes or the voting intention of the people who are paired.

Last night I had a series of emails in the course of the debate on the pandemic legislation from constituents who were asking why one of the members of the opposition did not vote—weren’t they supporting the position? I had to explain that the pairing was not about that person not being in the chamber voting. It was because the government had a member away and therefore the opposition had a member abstain to preserve the numerical balance between government and opposition. It was not about the position the particular person that was not in the chamber was taking; it was about preserving the balance across the house. The motion we have from Dr Ratnam today seeks to provide a mechanism for crossbenchers who are not in attendance to record a position, but that is not the purpose of a pairing arrangement. We have the resolution—

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Allied health workforce

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:00): My question is for the Minister for Higher Education. A recent survey by the Health and Community Services Union found 96 per cent of the workforce had witnessed violence in their workplace. The workforce identifies a clear nexus between addiction and this violence. Allied health workers say they need more training and support. Many would like to be skilled by studying Dan Lubman’s graduate certificate in addictive behaviours at Monash University but cannot afford it. The government already offers 10 scholarships in the graduate certificate to general and mental health nurses, so my question is this: would the minister consider expanding the number of scholarships offered and include all allied health workers, such as occupational therapists and social workers? I spoke very quickly, thinking I did not have much time. This is around these allied workers being able to do further study and receive a certificate for it, particularly to study that graduate certificate in addictive behaviours.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:02): I thank Ms Patten for her question. This is a matter that has not been raised with me before by anyone, so I am happy to take more information on board with it. Also in terms of what has been past practice, as the member would appreciate, in terms of the funding of higher education that is the primary responsibility of the commonwealth. But I am happy to receive further information in respect to this and, in particular, efforts in relation to building that pipeline of skilled workers that are needed in terms of government priority areas.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:02): Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that, and I will seek to contact your office about this to provide further information. In many ways you have probably answered my supplementary, because I wanted to ask whether you would agree that it is urgent to upskill our allied health workforce. This was one of the key recommendations of the mental health royal commission, so I wonder if I could seek from you also further information about any other scholarships or any other opportunities that these workers may be able to avail themselves of, appreciating that it is a federal responsibility, but there may be some state opportunities for them to avail themselves of.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:03): I think one of the things that you might look at, and others in the house as well, is when I receive the statewide skills plan from the Victorian Skills Authority. That will be in April, and that will indicate current and future shortages in the workforces and indeed alignment to those government priority areas. Of course health and allied health have always been a priority and are particularly at the moment, and we had that in mind when we constructed the membership of the ministerial advisory group that has been appointed for the Victorian Skills Authority. I have tasked the CEO to provide me as a matter of priority with what needs to happen in terms of the health and allied health workforce, as well as construction in terms of major projects.

Local government insurance

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): My question is to the Minister for Local Government. Can the minister tell the house why he has refused to step in and provide support and relief to the 31 members of the Municipal Association of Victoria following WorkSafe Victoria’s sudden decision last year not to allow the MAV WorkCare self-insurance scheme to continue?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:05): I think Mr Davis’s preamble once again is incorrect. I have had a number of conversations with the MAV concerning this issue. We have had dialogue together. We will continue to work together, and I will continue to support them in any way to get through this issue.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:05): Minister, I am pleased that you have communicated with them, but after only three years of operation and without any notice WorkSafe Victoria, as the regulator, refused to renew the self-insurance licence of the MAV. The MAV scheme in its three short years had lowered claims rates and, while COVID provided challenges to investments, the self-insurance fund outperformed the WorkSafe investments. The decision has left more than 30 of our smallest municipalities with a bill of more than $17 million to be paid by ratepayers, and I therefore ask, Minister: what steps will you take to support these municipalities now that they are about to be clobbered and forced to pass on higher rates?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:06): Once again Mr Davis makes a presumption about being forced to pay higher rates and all sorts of other assumptions. The issue with this question is that I believe it probably should have been directed to the minister responsible for WorkSafe, as to the reasons why WorkSafe took the action they have taken. I have had a number of conversations with the MAV. I am happy to continue working with them about how we might be able to assist them around this issue, and they have been very productive, professional conversations and meetings and so forth. I will continue to work with them diligently to assist them in any issue that they find their representative councils have.

Ministers statements: COVID-19 vaccination

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:07): Bevan Hirst is a fourth-year medical student at Deakin University in Geelong. He recently signed up to our frontline workforce to help get more jabs in Victorian arms. Nearly 600 Victorian university students just like Bevan have signed up since we announced a student vaccination program with Torrens Health earlier this year. I recently visited the Barwon Health vax hub located at the iconic former Ford factory in Geelong and had the privilege of meeting Bevan and seeing him in action. He is getting valuable real-life work experience while also helping save lives and return our community to COVID normal. But more than that, the program is a unique chance for students to earn while they learn. In some cases it is also helping them finish their degree sooner.

The student vaccination program is a great example of how the Andrews Labor government is helping to connect the dots between skills and the training sector, industry and communities. It is just one of the ways universities have contributed throughout the pandemic. They have been at the heart of our efforts, including Victoria University hosting a pop-up clinic where 2000 people were vaccinated in two days. Federation University had a pop-up testing site where 12 of its students worked. Research and development of vaccinations and community resourcing are happening at universities like Monash and Melbourne—and of course training the next generation of Victorian health workers. Bevan told me there is a common desire amongst other university students to help their communities. I look forward to seeing how he and other university students in this program make their mark in the future.

Commercial passenger vehicle industry

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:09): My question is for Minister Pulford, representing Minister Carroll in the other place. The regulator has now decided that it is incumbent on booking service providers, BSPs, to ensure that servicing is conducted by suitable and qualified mechanics. BSPs are also expected to audit the suitability of mechanics being used to provide their servicing. Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria can direct independent vehicle owners to provide evidence that servicing and repairs are being undertaken by suitably qualified professionals. This appears to be yet another barrier for taxi services. We can hardly expect an independent vehicle owner to conduct an audit of their mechanic. The CPVV now call themselves the safety regulator. They have lowered the bar on safety so low you can now stub your toe on it when you are trying to get over it. So my question is: does this regulation apply to rideshare operators as well so that Uber must audit the mechanics of their 50 000 employees?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:10): I thank Mr Barton for his question, which has been directed to Minister Carroll in his capacity as minister for transport. I thank and recognise Mr Barton for his ongoing, strong, consistent and effective advocacy for people in this industry that he knows so well, and I will seek a written response in accordance with our standing orders.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:10): Thank you, Minister. As it stands, the CPVV have introduced two different vehicle safety standards which are acceptable for commercial passenger vehicles. A roadworthy certificate issued by a licensed vehicle tester is a thorough examination of a vehicle. It costs between $170 and $200. However, the CPVV will also accept a RedBook inspection for rideshare drivers. Let me make this clear: RedBook is not a licensed vehicle tester in Victoria. RedBook offers prepurchase vehicle checks that are traditionally used by the second-hand car buyer to determine if they are buying rubbish. RedBook offer a test for rideshare operators for $52.80. My supplementary is: does the minister accept it is inappropriate for the CPVV to let rideshare drivers purchase a $52.80 vehicle check from an unlicensed vehicle tester yet demand that taxidrivers conduct their own audit of their mechanics to ensure they are suitably qualified and provide evidence of this audit to the CPVV?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:11): I thank Mr Barton for his supplementary question, which engages part of Minister Carroll’s responsibilities in the roads portfolio as well but is definitely a question around the regulator, the role and intersection with RedBook and safety standards as well. I thank Mr Barton again, and I am sure Mr Carroll will be happy to provide a response in accordance with our standing orders.

Local government insurance

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:12): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Can the minister tell the house what she has done or what steps she has taken to provide support and relief to the 31 members of the Municipal Association of Victoria following WorkSafe’s sudden decision late last year not to allow the MAV WorkCare self-insurance scheme to continue and whether the consequent increased charges will be passed on as increased rates?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:12): I thank Mr Davis for his question in relation to the Municipal Association of Victoria, who were approved as a self-insurer for approximately 30 participating local councils, mainly in regional and rural Victoria, from 1 November 2017. They were self-insured for a period of three years. I am aware that the Municipal Association of Victoria sought renewal of the self-insurance licence and in fact that WorkSafe refused that application for self-insurance. The councils themselves have returned to the WorkSafe scheme from 1 July 2021.

Decisions regarding self-insurance under the relevant act are matters for WorkSafe, and there is no role for the minister in that decision-making process. However, I have engaged with the Municipal Association of Victoria regarding this matter. They have corresponded with me, and I have replied to that correspondence. My understanding and the advice I have is that WorkSafe have been working collaboratively with the Municipal Association of Victoria throughout this process.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:14): It is pretty clear the minister has not actually met with the MAV on this. Perhaps you should. But let me just say, after only three years of operation, as you have outlined, that without any notice WorkSafe Victoria, as the regulator, refused to renew the self-insurance licence of the MAV. The MAV scheme had lowered claim rates, and while COVID provided challenges to investments, the self-insurance fund outperformed WorkSafe’s investments. But the decision has had the effect of leaving 30 small municipalities with a massive bill of $17 million. I ask you a very simple question: what on earth is the reason that you have cut the MAV scheme and forced the $17 million charge onto ratepayers?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:15): I thank Mr Davis for his supplementary question, which conflates a number of things, including the assertion that these decisions in any way will impact on rates across these 30 councils. There is absolutely no evidence of that. In fact the advice that I have received is that a good number of these councils’ WorkCover premiums will actually go down as a result of this decision. I reiterate that these are decisions that are made based on the criteria for self-insurance. Further to Mr Davis’s supplementary question, he makes the assertion that I have not met with the Municipal Association of Victoria, and I can advise the house that that is incorrect.

Ministers statements: Victorian Early Years Awards

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:16): I rise today to acknowledge all the finalists and winners in this year’s Victorian Early Years Awards. It was a great honour last week to present the Minister’s Award to Kinglake Ranges Children’s Centre for their bush kinder for mental health program. Educational leader Linda Price and her team created the program in 2017 in response to rising concerns about the mental health of their young children and data showing that children from the community were developmentally vulnerable. The team embarked on a journey of professional development and research as well as forging strong community connections to get the program established. Perhaps the best reflection on the success of this unique project is that of the children and families involved. Five-year-old Freddie Edwards said:

I love been outside with all the trees, rocks, waterfalls & all the bush medicine … Linda showed us how Aboriginal people make a medicine from plants if you’ve been bitten by a bull ant. And when you put the medicine on the bite, it evaporates …

… I like finding animals like the yabbies and their poos! We go on poo walks to see who’s been at bush kinder.

Freddie’s mum, Ange, said Freddie comes home:

… full of knowledge about our beautiful country … He always comes home with a big smile on his face & says how awesome his day was at Bush kinder.

Freddie is a real custodian of the environment.

The results of this wonderful program speak for themselves, with the latest data showing children from the community now rate above the state and national averages for school readiness in all areas of development. Congratulations to all the finalists and winners for their life-changing work.

Bushfire preparedness

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:18): My question is for the minister representing the minister for environment. Despite getting flood warnings right now, the fire risk is still going to be quite high going into summer. Previous attempts at fuel reduction have been met by protesters stopping burns and putting the lives of our communities, our farmers and our stock animals at risk. What is the government doing to ensure that fuel reduction targets are being met for the 2020–21 and 2021–22 seasons?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:18): I thank Mr Bourman for his question, which is directed to the minister for environment, and I will make sure that he gets a response as per the standing orders from that particular minister.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:18): I thank the minister for his answer. My supplementary is: protesters have become an ongoing problem with fuel reductions; what specifically is the government going to do about them to stop them putting lives at risk?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:18): I thank Mr Bourman for his supplementary question, and I will make sure the minister for environment prepares and he receives a written response to his question in line with my previous answer.

Minister for Workplace Safety

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:19): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, what is the normal length of time it would take for a Victorian to obtain a meeting with you?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:19): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. Obviously I do receive a large number of requests for meetings, and I try to be very responsive to those requests. If the member would like to provide me with the details of any meeting that she may be referring to, which may or may not have happened or been put in my diary, I would be more than happy to follow that up.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:20): Thank you, Minister. Mr Wigg has been seeking a meeting with you or your predecessor since January 2019. Given that his local member, the member for Bass, was unable to organise a meeting with the minister, can you please advise what day, month or year Mr Wigg can finally expect a meeting?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:20): I thank Ms Crozier for her supplementary question. I am very happy to follow that up. I am unaware of whether or not my office has met with Mr Wigg or whether there have been conversations about setting up a meeting, but I am very happy to follow that up and provide Ms Crozier with the details.

Ministers statements: local government funding

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:20): Today I would like to give an update on the local government business concierge and hospitality support program. In April 2021 more than $7 million was provided to councils across the state to employ dedicated staff to work with local businesses to assist them to adopt COVID-safe practices. Last week I announced a further $3.5 million to extend this program into the new year. The program means that councils have been able to employ more than 200 COVID business support officers. These officers work with businesses in high-risk locations like markets and shopping strips to help them understand and comply with the COVID-safe requirements such as QR code check-ins, checking vaccination certificates, physical distancing and cleaning. They also work with businesses that have been identified as exposure sites, as well as neighbouring businesses, to provide information and support. Councils with high numbers of residents from CALD backgrounds were provided with an additional allocation to provide language support.

To date more than 53 000 businesses across Victoria have received in-person support from one of these council support officers. More than 800 000 businesses have been engaged via email and outreach, including engagements through newsletters, emails, training resources and other materials. Manningham City Council used the funding to keep on one of the people they hired through the Working for Victoria program last year—a fantastic program; congratulations to Minister Pulford. That is just one of the examples of the partnerships that the state government and councils have embarked on to support local businesses through the pandemic. As I have said many times, local governments have done a fantastic job in supporting their communities through the tough time that has been the global pandemic.

Family violence

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:22): My question is for the Attorney-General. One way victims can be controlled within a family violence relationship is if an offender monitors their movements through the use of GPS technology. A recent study by Wesnet, a peak national domestic violence body, reveals that there was a 245 per cent jump in victim-survivors being tracked by GPS apps and devices last year. There are offences in the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 relating to this behaviour, including section 7, which is ‘Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices’. Sentencing Advisory Council data tells us that out of the 45 offenders charged with this offence between 2016 and 2019 only six received jail time. Further alarming is a lack of data—that is, there is none—for section 8, which is ‘Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of tracking devices’. Attorney, can you tell me how many people have been charged with the section 8 offence since 2016 and what the sentencing outcome of offenders has been?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:23): I thank Mr Grimley for his question. It is a really important issue. Obviously the use of surveillance devices or GPS as a way to effectively stalk, harass or keep tabs on someone is abhorrent and, because it is so covert, particularly disturbing for victims, because they either do not know it is happening or are unsure whether they have taken measures to be able to stop it. As you have identified, there are offences under the Surveillance Devices Act. It is also relevant in relation to family violence safety notices, and using coercive devices can form part of a breach of personal safety and family violence intervention orders, for instance.

In relation to the specific information that you have sought, as you have identified, the Sentencing Advisory Council is looking at offences under the Surveillance Devices Act. That will be fed into the VLRC’s—a lot of acronyms in my portfolio, the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s—review into stalking, and it is part of the current public consultation process. I have got to say, having just tabled the last Victorian Law Reform Commission report, into sexual offending, the work is fantastic, and I really look forward to the stalking report and the recommendations and the findings of that report. I know it is of immense interest to the Hinch party, so these are issues that we can continue to talk about. I do thank the VLRC for accepting that reference and that important work, taking into account the Sentencing Advisory Council’s work and, as you have identified, perhaps the appropriateness of the offences, how many people have been charged and indeed how many people are actually receiving appropriate sentences for this inappropriate behaviour.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:25): Thanks, Attorney, for that answer and feedback. Jess Hill’s See What You Made Me Do book and SBS docuseries demonstrated that coercive control can be exhibited through electronic tracking of a partner’s car, wallet or phone and even through a child’s teddy bear. In a piece in the Herald Sun recently private investigator Paul Walsh of Asia Pacific Security Group said he had never had more work on surveillance-related family cases. It seems that there should be at the very least a mandate for record keeping of these devices being sold for cars, which could be used as evidence in court to demonstrate controlling behaviour. Attorney, given the risk present in this increasingly worrying trend of perpetrators utilising GPS technology to track their partners, how does your department intend on addressing this in order to maintain the safety of family violence victim-survivors? I do realise that you probably covered off on some of that in your previous answer.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:26): I thank Mr Grimley for his question. It is terrifying the lengths that some people will go to to exert control over someone, very generally their partner or former partner. As you have identified, it can be particularly common in family violence situations. As I have identified, it does form part of the family violence legislative response in relation to being able to obtain safety protection notices and also evidence of any of that type of behaviour can amount to a breach as opposed to a physical breach, for instance. I am very keen in this area. I acknowledge that we have been talking about technology and surveillance and their impact on the criminal justice system for some time, but I think it will be a really useful conversation that will be generated from the consultations with the VLRC report and the findings, because it is very much connected to stalking behaviour.

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:27): My question is to the Attorney-General. Minister, you are responsible for the Ombudsman under the administrative orders. Yesterday the Ombudsman spoke publicly about serious deficiencies in the pandemic bill. She said she still has significant concerns and there is a need for greater independent oversight than what is currently possible under the proposed legislation. She said her office would no longer be able to provide independent review of detention orders. Will you urgently meet with the Ombudsman to hear her concerns and make necessary modifications to the entirely inadequate bill?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:28): I thank Mr Davis for his question. I am not responsible for the Ombudsman and her office; they are an independent office. I meet regularly with the Ombudsman and listen to issues that she is addressing. The issues that you have raised are specifically in relation to the bill that will be in committee tomorrow, and I think we would be best placed to resolve them then. We can have a comprehensive conversation about those issues in the appropriate part of the parliamentary sitting week, which would be the committee stage of that bill.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:28): As the Attorney indicates, the Ombudsman is an independent officer, and she could ring her or talk to her in the coming day to actually listen to her concerns. Nonetheless, not only has the Ombudsman criticised the lack of oversight in the pandemic bill, but so too have major legal experts like the Victorian Bar Council, and I ask: will you, Attorney, meet urgently with the bar council to address their continuing concerns with the lack of oversight in the bill?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (12:29): I am a bit concerned about the opposition’s obsession with ministers’ diaries today. I meet regularly with the bodies that you have mentioned and will continue to do so.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, that does not answer this directly. Will you meet with the bar council with respect to this pandemic bill?

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

Ministers statements: employment

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (12:30): Given the opposition’s apparent lack of interest in my diary, I would like to take the opportunity to update the house on what the government has been doing. This is some of the ways that I spend my time in supporting job workers as we begin to recover and reopen from the pandemic.

We have invested over $1 billion in employment programs, job services and wage subsidies since April last year and into the next two years. The Working for Victoria program created over 14 000 jobs, supporting those who needed work most during the pandemic. Our Jobs Victoria service is up and running, with around 500 staff on the ground—job advocates, job mentors and career counsellors supporting jobseekers back to work. And our $250 million Jobs Victoria Fund aims to support a further 10 000 jobseekers into work and support small and family businesses to hire much-needed staff.

As the economy recovers and reopens, I have had the opportunity to announce publicly several new Jobs Victoria initiatives supporting women, young people and veterans. This week I was joined by Box Hill Institute at Ohana Hairdressing in Collingwood to announce 75 new earn and learn jobs in hairdressing, an innovative employment program to support women over 45 and younger Victorians to get into the hair and beauty sector. And last week it was a delight to join the Minister for Veterans at the Shrine of Remembrance to announce the Victorian government will provide $20 000 to eligible employers if they back a veteran with a job, and I thank Mr Leane for initiating the conversation with me about what more we can do to help veterans find their way into work.

So far almost 4000 new jobs have been created by the Andrews government through the Jobs Victoria Fund, with thousands more in the pipeline, which I look forward to sharing with you in the not-too-distant future. I will take the opportunity to update the house from time to time on our progress as we support jobseekers back into work.

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:32): Regarding today: Ms Patten’s question, one day, Ms Tierney—only the question; Mr Barton, transport, Ms Pulford, two days, question and supplementary; Mr Bourman, environment, Mr Leane, two days, question and supplementary; and Ms Crozier’s supplementary, one day, Ms Stitt.

Constituency questions

Northern Metropolitan Region

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:32): (1514) My constituency question today is for the Minister for Police. The people of Thornbury in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region are concerned about the illegal dumping of rubbish and the graffiti in their local area. Recently I invited the locals in Thornbury to complete my community survey, and I am very grateful to those who responded. Thornbury is such a diverse and wonderful place. The Welcome to Thornbury venue on High Street is very famous across Melbourne’s north, and that whole precinct is home to a very thriving hospitality industry—the parks, the river tracks, the bike tracks are beautiful in the Thornbury area and have become a very important asset to the community during this time of lockdown, and they need to be protected. The question I have for the minister is: will the minister commit to extra police patrols to better deter the illegal dumping of rubbish and antisocial behaviour near Preston South Woolworths and Aldi in Dundas Street, around the Egan Reserve around Merri Creek, Darebin Creek around Clarendon Street and the sports fields and the train stations? The Thornbury residents like a nice, clean area in which to raise their families.

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): (1515) My constituency question is to the Minister for Training and Skills. A local business has contacted my office seeking support for additional hospitality workers in their cafe. Restaurant owners are reporting a gradual whittling away of TAFE education over the years, with the cutting of chef apprenticeships from four to three years and experiencing very little support for students to complete their courses. Hospitality student numbers have dropped from 19 200 enrolments in 2010 to just 12 000 in 2018. What is the government doing to improve numbers in these TAFE courses and make hospitality training a more sustainable and attractive prospect for young people, cafes and restaurants in my electorate?

Western Metropolitan Region

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:34): (1516) My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Minister for Child Protection, the Honourable Richard Wynne. My question relates to the portfolio responsibility of housing. COVID-19 has highlighted how important stable housing is for all Victorians. I am proud to be a part of the Andrews Labor government, which is extending the transition out of emergency hotel accommodation for Victorians experiencing homelessness. This new $66 million in funding will help up to 250 families with children to access secure, stable housing. Nearly 1600 Victorians experiencing homelessness have already been provided with stable homes and support through the $150 million From Homelessness to a Home program, and work to identify additional housing is continuing every day. My question to the minister is: can the minister please provide me with an update on how residents of the Western Metropolitan Region who are facing homelessness will benefit from this particular initiative?

Northern Victoria Region

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:35): (1517) My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and it concerns the return of the noxious weed Paterson’s curse in the Gunbower state forest and national park. I raised the issue of the prevalence of Paterson’s curse throughout the forest and park on 11 November 2020 after members of the Central Murray Environmental Floodplains Group expressed concerns about the rapid spread of the weed. In my contribution I sought proper management of the problem to be carried out by Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning officers. The minister responded stating that strategies implemented would reduce the larger clusters of the plant in the forest and national park. Recent feedback indicates that the inadequate action taken 12 months ago has failed to combat the weed and has actually seen it spread even further this year. Will the minister give an undertaking to ensure that effective action is taken by DELWP officers to properly manage this noxious weed in the Gunbower state forest and national park?

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:36): (1518) My question is for the Minister for Health. I recently met with a local business owner who owns a large plastics manufacturing facility in South Dandenong. This factory produces a wide range of medical-grade products for companies across Australia and has won many awards for its innovation and design. Like many business owners I have spoken with, he does not wish to force vaccination on his staff, yet at the same time he does not want to terminate their employment. The factory is 3000 square metres and employs 30 people, and as it is producing pharmaceutical products, it must also be a sterile environment which meets some of the highest hygiene standards in Victoria. The risk of transmission in a workplace like this is incredibly low, and this local business is an exemplary opportunity to adopt the use of rapid testing. My question to the minister is: will the government update the advice for businesses operating to high hygiene standards to allow for the use of rapid testing as an alternative to mandatory vaccinations?

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:37): (1519) My question is for the Minister for Higher Education and concerns this week’s news that New South Wales will welcome its first chartered plane of fully vaccinated international students on 6 December. They will not need to quarantine. Yet in Victoria, the Premier’s self-proclaimed Education State, there is still no time line for allowing international students back in this way. Every day matters. Existing students continue to suffer, while prospective applicants will be making decisions to go elsewhere as the state government dithers. As Phil Honeywood, CEO of the International Education Association of Australia, said, Victoria has still not confirmed when international students can arrive. The New South Wales plan to bring back international students was submitted to the federal government significantly earlier than Victoria’s. Minister, when will Victoria catch up? When will the terrific universities in my electorate, Deakin and Federation, see their students return?

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:39): (1520) My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it concerns widespread dissatisfaction with the revised Murray Basin rail project. For two years I have worked very closely with Ouyen Inc., who are advanced in planning for the Sunraysia–Mallee–Port Lincoln intermodal. Ouyen Inc. and a large list of stakeholders recently submitted to the minister a solution to the problem she cited for not finishing the Murray Basin rail project. Their plan enables freight trains to move through Ballarat’s overlap section without affecting the increased passenger train services. As far back as 8 February 2018 the minister gave an undertaking in Parliament to work with Ouyen Inc. regarding rail opportunities. Today I ask the minister why the government will not accept the $5 million to examine completion of the Murray Basin rail project in full.

Western Metropolitan Region

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:40): (1521) My constituency question is to the Minister for Small Business. This morning I received an email from a constituent, who posed a problem that may be about to become a recurring theme, I feel. My constituent runs a small business at the Footscray Market and has done so for some 15 years. She recently received a demand by an authorised officer—I hate that term—of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, demanding she present to the department her record of vaccination status. My constituent regards this as a breach of both privacy and her human rights. My constituent now faces the very real prospect of having to close her business altogether. Minister, she clearly does not wish to shut up shop, and I ask what advice you and your department can offer my constituent in dealing with the dilemma that she faces.

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:41): (1522) My question is to the Minister for Health in the other place, and it is from a resident in Albion. She is the president of a senior citizens club, and many of their members have chosen not to be vaccinated. I will read out just part of her letter:

During this difficult time … the older people were exhausted from loneliness. At present there is more freedom, and they ask for an opportunity to meet, to come to the Club.

It doesn’t work like that, to issue an order, and not to explain how it will work in each individual group. Of course, you … can forget about the older people. Cross them out—

like they have got—

… one foot in the grave.

Her question is this: could you please give them detailed instructions on how to live with COVID in these last years of their lives?

Eastern Victoria Region

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:42): (1523) My constituency question is for the Minister for Agriculture. It has been almost three years since 70 activists stormed and invaded John Gommans’s Yarragon goat farm, greatly distressing his staff and stealing his livestock. It has been almost two years since the Economy and Infrastructure Committee presented to this Parliament and to government the inquiry report, one that I moved in this house, with a recommendation calling for on-the-spot fines for activists that invade farms and compromise biosecurity and livestock. Minister, no Victorian deserves to be intimidated or threatened. When will you implement recommendation 5 of this said report?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:43): (1524) My constituency question is for the Minister for Education, and it concerns Caulfield Primary School and what appears to be a rooming house that is directly opposite or just close by. There are two issues that I am raising that are both linked to this house across the road from the school. Victoria Police regularly attend this house, and there have been concerns raised for years by residents, Glen Eira council, the police, school families and MPs about ongoing instances of aggression, harassment and verbal abuse coming from the house. In addition there are so many pigeons landing on the school’s roof coming from it that the gutters continue to fill up with pigeon droppings, which is costing the school several thousand dollars to clear, with no extra funding being provided by the Department of Education and Training. Now, anyone who looks at this house on Google Maps will see the pigeons flying from the house across to the school, and it is absolutely disgusting and terrible. So on behalf of the concerned local residents and school community I ask the minister to ensure that department officials meet with the school in order to address the pigeon dropping problem and ensure the department liaises with other government departments and agencies to correct this issue.

Northern Victoria Region

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:44): (1525) My constituency question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. The Murray Basin rail project is a topic I keep coming back to. I spoke in July 2019 and November 2020. Here I am again in 2021 asking the minister to deliver the project as originally planned. Last month the Victorian Farmers Federation president pointed out the dangers on our rural roads. This harvest thousands of trucks will be travelling regional roads, moving millions of tonnes of grain after a bumper season—roads that are already crumbling under the load and lack of maintenance, grain that should have been transported by rail. Growers cannot delay the harvest, as was suggested by Rail Projects Victoria regarding their crossing upgrade at Murchison. In the government’s own words, ‘the Murray Basin rail project is a vital project for Victoria’s farmers and the freight industry’. The government’s rail loop project has blown out by $1.35 billion. There is endless money for urban rail but nothing for the regions. Minister, what are you doing to put the Murray Basin rail project and the grain harvest back on track?

Business of the house

Sessional orders

Debate resumed.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:45): I was saying before question time that the motion moved by Dr Ratnam to create a new, as she described, ‘formal pairing arrangement’ misunderstands the purpose of pairs. Pairs as they have operated in this chamber are not to record the vote of absent members; they are to reflect the numerical difference largely between a government and an opposition, whichever parties are in power.

When a member of the government or a member of the opposition is absent the tradition has been for the other party to grant a pair to maintain the balance of numbers between the government and the opposition. I note that the recording of pairs in Hansard reflects that. If members look at the way pairs were recorded in Hansard, they will see that the ayes are recorded with a list of members voting in favour of a proposition, the noes are recorded with a list of members opposing a proposition and where pairs were recorded formally it simply noted the names of the two people that were paired. It did not record them as supporting or opposing a proposition; it merely noted that they were the pair. So Dr Ratnam’s proposition that pairing allows the position of the crossbenchers to be formally recorded as supporting or opposing a proposition is actually not what pairing is about. It is not how pairing has been used in the past.

I note also that the motion Dr Ratnam has brought to the house today could perhaps kindly be described as ‘loosely drafted’. It introduces a number of complications in terms of the impact on the standing orders, the first being the very concept of pairing. Pairing is something which has been, as I said, an informal arrangement between governments and oppositions over decades. Pairing is not something that is reflected anywhere in the standing orders of this house. It is an informal arrangement. Dr Ratnam now seeks to make pairing a formal element of our standing orders, I might add, without actually defining what pairing is. Dr Ratnam seeks to insert a new sessional order after standing order 16.06 to state:

The following formal pairing arrangement may take place in addition to any informal pairing arrangement in relation to a division on any question …

and it goes on to elements. Firstly, we do not know what a formal pairing arrangement is as distinct from an informal pairing arrangement, both of which are mentioned in Dr Ratnam’s motion without clarifying the difference, and also without clarifying what a pairing arrangement is for Dr Ratnam’s purposes. It then goes on:

(1) a vote pair may be requested and granted between two Members of the crossbench and/or other parties …

What is not clear from this first element is who makes the request, who they make the request to and who grants the request. There are a whole lot of elements introduced in the drafting of this motion which do not simplify operations in the house. They create complexity and uncertainty and then later on drop the Clerk into it with responsibility for actually working out how it is supposed to apply. The second element is:

(2) a vote pair may be formally recognised only if a division eventuates in relation to the question put …

This raises the issue of exactly which question the pair is supposed to relate to, because the third element of the motion provides that:

(3) a vote pair will be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings and Hansard only when both Members that have entered into the vote pair arrangement on a question have notified the Clerk (by email … no later than 30 minutes before the vote has occurred in the House or in Committee of the whole, that they have agreed to a vote pair and they did not formally vote on the question …

The question that then gives rise to is: what exactly is the vote that the Clerk is supposed to apply this emailed vote pair to? It must be received in writing more than 30 minutes before the vote takes place.

As we know in this chamber, the house is a dynamic place. A question which is proposed at the start of a debate may be modified by amendment. In the case of second reading, for example, it may be subject to a reasoned amendment or it may be subject to adjournment. There are any number of changes which can be made to an initial question which finally gets put. The question then arises: how does the Clerk apply a vote pair that has been submitted to him? If two members choose to submit a vote pair in respect of a motion on the notice paper and that motion is subsequently amended, is the Clerk supposed to apply the vote pair to the amended motion or is he only to apply the vote pair to the original motion if it is not amended? That is an element which has not been clarified in Dr Ratnam’s motion.

Another element not dealt with by Dr Ratnam’s proposed standing order amendment is the capacity to withdraw a vote pair if a member subsequently changes their mind, having submitted a vote pair to the Clerk more than half an hour before a vote takes place, which means they have to anticipate when a vote will take place. If they subsequently hear something in the course of debate which leads to them adopting a different position to that which they initially advised, do they have the capacity to actually withdraw the vote pair that has been notified to the Clerk? So there are a number of complexities arising from this motion which ultimately sit, if it is passed, in the hands of the Clerk. In fact the fourth element of the motion states:

(4) any dispute arising, at any time before the Clerk publishes the weekly Minutes of the Proceedings, will be determined by the Clerk who may alter any record of pairs accordingly.

It is not the practice of this house to make the Clerk the deciding party, the judicial party, in outcomes of the house, and it is in my view unreasonable to put the Clerk in the position of having to interpret what two members meant by a vote pair and how that vote pair should be applied. That is a matter for the house to determine where there is a dispute, not for the Clerk to be put in the invidious position of having to determine what was or was not intended by what could be a very loosely worded email—‘I vote in favour of bill X and the other member is going to vote against bill X. Therefore that is a vote pair’. There is simply not the clarity, simply not the precision, that is required for the Clerk to be able to give effect to this mechanism.

I said at the outset the motion misunderstands the purpose of pairs, being to reflect and maintain the numerical difference between a government party and an opposition party. Pairs have never been a mechanism to record the votes of absent members. This motion is ill-conceived, it is badly drafted, and I would encourage members of the house to oppose this resolution today.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:53): I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his contribution. I understand that he said that it is not the practice. I think he said that numerous times, but we are in the year 2021 and things have changed. We have been in a pandemic, we have mobile phones and we now can actually have Zoom meetings. With things that were not the practice, sometimes we have to actually get into the year that we are in as well as using forward thinking. I also think Mr Rich-Phillips, if he actually listened to his own contribution, would answer his own questions. I absolutely believe he is overthinking this in lots of details.

For me, it makes numerical sense. It is something that the Clerk would normally do. Obviously with emails it would be very clear what the intention of the non-government members would be. The opposition should start to take the position that they need to start working with the crossbench, not just the government, with secret little emails to each other and not allowing us in the crossbench to know who is here, who is absent and what is actually going on with the pairing.

We spend most of our time sitting on this bench wondering who is absent and then realising there is a pairing arrangement, but also the pairing arrangement just says ‘Government’ and ‘Opposition’, so one minute it is Mr Finn who steps outside, the next minute it is Bev who steps outside—it is not clear. In this arrangement it would be clear because it would be Dr Cumming—my name—and allowing the clerks to know what we are actually doing a half-hour beforehand would give everyone in this house a clear understanding of what the arrangements will be for all the voting patterns within that. It will be a clear arrangement that, say if I wanted to pair with the opposition, I would be saying, ‘Look, I’m at home. I have COVID. This is what’s on the agenda. I can’t make it today. This is what I’d like to do’. Then I would be speaking to the opposition, and then I would forward that to the Clerk so that it is transparent, independent and everybody would know about it, rather than a background email from the opposition to the ALP or the government to the opposition. So for me I see this as transparency, accountability and a recorded record in the way of emails through the clerks—the independent people who are here to look after every member of Parliament—and it would not just be the two major parties talking amongst themselves.

So I see what Dr Ratnam is proposing, with others here on the crossbench who have been working with the clerks and the government—and we have asked for the opposition to work with us as well—as something that we could move forward towards. For me, I would ask Mr Rich-Phillips to actually talk to the clerks the way that the crossbench has to formulate this motion, with all of the hard work that we have actually put in with the clerks to make sure that that is the case. So I encourage Mr Rich-Phillips to actually work with the crossbench. I am not sure if you have got my number, but I will make sure that you do, as well as others in the 11, and then we can all communicate amongst ourselves and make sure that the great running of this chamber will occur into the future.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:57): I move:

That debate on this motion be deferred until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended 12.57 pm until 2.02 pm.

Motions

Family violence

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:03): I move:

That this house:

(1) recognises:

(a) the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending;

(b) that perpetrators of family violence may offend against multiple family members and intimate partners;

(c) that disclosure of relevant information about the criminal history of a perpetrator is a key indicator in family violence risk assessment and management;

(2) calls on the government to:

(a) review legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence; and

(b) consider the suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

I rise today to speak on my motion 676, which calls on the government to examine the abhorrent behaviour known as coercive control and the potential for evidence of such behaviour to be used in court cases. My motion today is to represent victims who have suffered and endured the effects and impacts of coercive control and to seek much-needed changes to how organisations and our justice system respond to the impacts of coercive control and the traumatic implications that are often irreversible. I am not going to dance lightly around this subject today, nor am I going to refrain from highlighting serious concerns about the insidious behaviours that ruin lives and leave lasting scars on victims, scars that for some will never heal. Some of this information may be overwhelming, and it should be. I am not here to sugar-coat the reality of the consequences and impacts of this appalling behaviour, which is nothing short of inexcusable, controlling and ultimately an expression of the inadequacy of those who inflict it on others.

The murder of Hannah Clarke and her children in February 2020 broke the hearts of our nation. It was a watershed moment in sparking the national conversation around coercive control. We need to determine how this conversation is going to happen in Victoria, and that is why I am putting this motion to the Parliament today. One woman every week dies at the hands of her current or former partner. I am going to say that again: one woman every week in Australia dies at the hands of her current or former partner. According to the Victorian homicide register there have been 110 family violence homicides in this state—in this state of Victoria—in the past five years. There were more than 174 000 family violence offences reported in Victoria in the year ending 30 June 2021. This was an increase of 18 per cent on 2018–19—18 per cent; that is enormous. The men’s referral service recorded a 90 per cent increase in calls in April 2020, when stage 3 restrictions were introduced. Police were called to 92 251 incidents in 2020, and those are the ones that were reported. These are big numbers.

Before I speak more specifically about coercive control, I want to take a moment to pay my respects to the victims, victim-survivors and their families and loved ones. I also pay my respects to the staunch advocates for those who do not have a voice themselves, and some of them are in Queen’s Hall today—these victim-survivors who advocate for the deceased, for those who are silenced by grief and for those who are living with violence and silenced by fear. As MPs for Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party, Mr Grimley and I have the privilege to advocate for those who are impacted by crime, whether they are survivors or it is in their memories. We speak with people every week whose lives are forever changed by the offences committed against them or their loved ones. Some are here today, and your courage is truly inspiring and is at the centre of our work. I also note the efforts of frontline police, family violence specialists and the broader social services network who work at the coalface, who try to help people access safety, pick up the pieces and achieve justice. We know it is a complicated and heartbreaking job for some.

Coercive and controlling behaviours are a form of violence involving repeat patterns of abusive behaviour. They can cause enormous harm, leaving victims isolated, insecure and fearful. Coercive controlling behaviour is pervasive by nature. It increases the likelihood of escalating violence within a relationship, and it is likely to persist after separation. Controlling behaviours might include any combination of measures, such as withholding money, tracking a phone and reading emails and texts. It could be regulating what someone wears, who they hang out with or where they go; following them, isolating them and making things so difficult that friends and family pull away; or gaslighting, making threats, manipulation and intimidation. As a victim of coercive control becomes increasingly isolated the patterns of abuse can escalate. It is no wonder they refer to coercive control as invisible chains. Many victims report that the psychological abuse is often worse than all but the most extreme physical abuse because of its persistent and enduring nature.

Going back to the case of Hannah Clarke, one of her closest friends reported having spoken to her husband on many occasions to effectively pull him up on the controlling behaviours that he exercised over his wife. This friend said that he only heard the term ‘coercive control’ after Hannah’s death and that if he had known more about coercive control he would have done more.

Here in Victoria our courts recently considered the horrifying abuse suffered by Michelle Skewes at the hands of her ex-husband—and I met with Ms Skewes in preparing this motion. In fact she is in Queen’s Hall today watching this very speech. Coercive controlling behaviours were pervasive throughout her marriage, and she described trying to make herself a small target and keep a public mask of normality in order to hide her private life of misery. For more than a decade Ms Skewes was stripped of her independence, her vibrancy, her dignity and her sense of self-worth. And the manipulation and denigration extended to extreme physical and sexual violence.

Excerpts noted by the judge from Ms Skewes’s victim impact statement included that the possibility of vomiting triggers panic, she apologises for everything, her self-esteem is still broken by humiliation and shame, she is hypervigilant, naturally distrusting of others, anxious about her physical health and plagued by nightmares and exhaustion. If you read the transcript of her court case, you would indeed concur that this is probably a very underestimated sense of the trauma that has been inflicted upon this woman. She suffered the besmirching judgement of others as if her abuse disturbed an idyllic public picture of her marriage, and we see that so often in relationships where coercive control is used to manipulate a partner.

Ms Skewes’s courage to share her story in the face of all that she has endured is remarkable. Her offender was sentenced to more than a decade in prison. The judge said, and I quote:

This sentence must send a clear and unequivocal message of deterrence that those who are like-minded to offend in this way, particularly men in the context of coercive control and domestic violence, must understand that their behaviour will be met by condemnation and denunciation as utterly unacceptable conduct and with stern and just punishment.

Now with much ahead to rebuild her life with her children, Ms Skewes is in this Parliament today hoping that she can help prevent the abuse she endured from happening to others.

These offences are quite hard to imagine, but the work of police, social workers and our courts is littered with cases of intimate partner and family violence. Can I just make a note in there that very recently it was also published that an enormous number of Victoria Police members have been found guilty or have been charged with these offences. It does not discriminate. There are people, men and women from all walks of life, that perpetrate this controlling, coercive behaviour, and it is simply unacceptable.

We know the New South Wales Joint Select Committee on Coercive Control has recommended a criminal offence for the patterns of oppressive behaviour that are coercive control. This committee heard evidence that 111 out of 112 cases of intimate partner homicide—99 per cent—had been preceded by elements of coercive control. We are dreaming to think that domestic and family violence offending stops when one relationship ends. You only have to look at data from the domestic violence disclosure scheme in South Australia for verification that abusive partners can repeat their offending from one relationship to the next.

South Australia launched a domestic violence disclosure scheme in 2018 where people with a concern about their safety could apply to know information about a partner’s history of domestic offending. More than 900 people have applied through the scheme for information since its launch. In an analysis of just 221 of those applicants, more than 100 men had a history of abuse of up to three people, while 15 had harmed between four and 10 others. That is nearly half that had repeated their offending across multiple partners. Keep in mind that this history will only include what has been reported, so it is a bit like an iceberg and there is likely to be a lot more under the surface.

There are tragic cases in our country of victims who were killed by a current or former partner where there were red flags and only when it was too late did the criminal history of the offender emerge. Rekiah O’Donnell is one such case. Rekiah died at age 22 when she was murdered by her abusive partner. Only after her death did the family become aware that he had previously offended and had a former partner and two children who were hiding from him.

The Centre Against Violence in my home town of Wangaratta has done extensive work over decades with victims of violence, including family violence. In their experience, understanding the past behaviour and character of an offender is absolutely an indicator of future offending, but often they cannot share that information or there are substantial limitations on what they can share. Issues raised about our justice system are not always about the laws that exist but are often about how they are applied and how they can favour offenders to the detriment of their victims. That is one thing that I hear constantly, time and time again: victims feel the offender’s rights outweigh the victim’s rights, and we have an enormous amount of data which supports that argument.

One of the principles of our criminal justice system is the concept of ‘de novo’, which effectively means ‘new’. Every incident is considered in its own right, but this single-incident approach does not fit with the enduring nature of coercive control and some other family violence offending. It effectively means that offenders avoid accountability for the complex and enduring ongoing behavioural patterns that occur in abusive relationships. Coercive, controlling behaviours in isolation might be viewed as minor and not criminal. When considered in the total context of control it is a completely different picture, and this is what we need to capture. Our existing criminal systems are described as ‘too narrow to capture the patterns of coercion and control’. Without consequence or when behaviour is downplayed or dismissed the behaviour is reinforced in the mind of offenders and blame is often shifted to the victims.

Kerry Burns is the former CEO of the Centre Against Violence in Wangaratta and a highly experienced and respected practitioner. She was also a witness at the Legal and Social Issues Committee inquiry. In one of our first conversations after I was elected Ms Burns spoke to me at length about the need to make the court system more victim centred, including our courts taking into account the whole picture of offending when it comes to family violence. As a service they might have considerable information relating to family violence for their client, including coercive, controlling behaviours, that has never been considered by our courts. If an organisation like the Centre Against Violence or a GP or health service has information about that history, it should be required to be put to the courts when offending is against an intimate partner or family member to provide a consideration of the broader context in which the offending occurred.

With me in Parliament today is Lee Little, and I have spoken about Lee in this chamber before. Lee’s daughter Alicia was killed by her partner as she attempted to leave the relationship. We know that that for many is the most dangerous time in their relationship. Alicia’s body was crushed against a water tank by the car her partner was driving, and he left the scene without assisting her. She died. Alicia’s offender was charged with murder. This was later plea-bargained down to a charge of dangerous driving causing death. Can you imagine how Alicia’s mother feels hearing that sentence when she knew of his past offending, she knew of his controlling behaviours? And yet the Office of Public Prosecutions indicated to the family the plea bargain guaranteed them a guilty verdict. It saved them the trauma of a trial. For the family, not only did they lose Alicia, they felt they lost their justice.

Alicia had interactions with the Centre Against Violence before her death and had reported to her doctor. The court noted their relationship was volatile within their four-year relationship and had been marked by episodes of family violence, yet there was no opportunity for the records of the Centre Against Violence or the evidence of their caseworkers to be presented to the court, so there was little consideration of family violence in the context of this offence, not to mention that he was subject to an intervention order by a former partner. The plea-bargaining process, by reducing the charge, took family violence outside the scope of the incident, so the court never obtained the full picture.

Plea-bargaining is seen as a necessary and efficient part of our justice system, most often the horsetrading of a guilty plea in exchange for a reduced charge and lower sentence. Courts often justify this by saying that victims are not traumatised through the court process, which might be true, but victims and their families often say they want their day in court, they want their story known. This is certainly the case for Lee Little and her family, and from discussions that I have had today with these victims who have come in to tell their story, they often feel judged, because if they are not sitting in a courtroom crying, if they are not curled up in that fetal position, then they are often judged and it is deemed, ‘You’re not traumatised by this violence, because you’re not externally showing it to everybody’. People deal with trauma in many different ways, and it is incumbent upon us all to listen, to hear those stories and to never judge, because I am sure that we have all in this chamber had something in some way that has happened to us, and we may respond completely differently to how people expect us to.

We know the coroner indicated to Lee Little’s family they would conduct a review of Alicia Little’s death, and a systemic review of family violence deaths forms part of coronial proceedings. But Alicia died in 2017, and it could still be years before the inquest takes place. That leaves Lee Little’s family lying in wait, waiting every day to hear if something is going to happen for them.

Another victim-survivor of family violence can attest to the adverse impact of plea-bargaining on her case, and that person is watching today also from Queen’s Hall. They say that coercive control often first presents itself as an expression of love, of interest and of protection. For this survivor charm turned to coercive control and later sexual and physical violence. The offender was charged with 70 criminal offences, which were reduced once he pleaded guilty. In the end he was sentenced to just three months jail, which was further reduced on appeal to a two-year community corrections order.

The long-term impacts are not just for the intimate partner but extended to the children. Let us call this child Liam. Liam was eight when his mother met his stepfather. He was fabulous at first and would play footy with him. Later he would be mean to Liam—call him names, constantly criticise him, be rough with him. Liam did his best to just stay out of the way, and this went on for years. We know that in these stories there are often children who are impacted by this violence.

Moving forward, thank you, everyone, for listening. I look forward to hearing the contributions today, and I hope people will support this motion. It is a very important motion, and once again thank you to the victims who are here today. And thank you, everyone, for listening.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:24): I rise to speak on the motion as proposed in regard to a range of things regarding family violence but also particularly the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending. It calls on the government to review our legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence and consider a suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

As many would know in this place, the government accepted all of the recommendations that arose out of the Royal Commission into Family Violence, and it is something that our government were world-first leaders in in announcing the Royal Commission into Family Violence. We have acquitted 204 of the royal commission’s 227 recommendations, and all of the 23 remaining recommendations are well underway.

Before I go any further I would also like to acknowledge any victim-survivors who may be watching the live broadcast at home. Obviously some of you may be here in this chamber unknown to me, so if you are impacted I wish to acknowledge you as well—and also, as I said, acknowledge those people who may be watching on the live broadcast and remember those who have been killed as a result of family violence as well. We also keep at the forefront of our minds all those who are experiencing family violence today and for whom we undertake this very important work.

As I said, we have acquitted 204 of the royal commission’s 227 recommendations, and the remainder are well underway. This government has invested $3.5 billion, more than every other state combined and more than the commonwealth, into addressing this problem. There is more to do. There will always be more to do in this space. It is a very intractable problem, and family violence and the consequences of it have roots in many different geneses. We have talked about gender inequity as one basis for gendered violence but also family violence. There are many, many things that contribute to it. So there are a range of fronts that governments and agencies need to work on, and we are consistently and persistently working our way to wind back these behaviours and to protect family violence survivors.

I just want to focus a little bit on the issue of coercive control. We need to speak carefully about coercive control, particularly in the context of what protections we are offering to family violence survivors, because I think perhaps what is embedded in Ms Maxwell’s motion—again I thank her for bringing this to the house, and it is by no means a criticism at all—but what I think is perhaps not well understood is that there are a range of mechanisms within our family violence responses that do allow for, whether it is the authorities or not, protections to be afforded to people who are experiencing coercive control as part of that spectrum of family violence behaviours. So it is clear; it is identified. I understand the point that different jurisdictions might have other particular and specific, nuanced approaches, but rest assured that here in Victoria our legislative frameworks do address this point.

Coercive and controlling behaviour can already constitute an offence in Victoria, and it is explicitly defined as a form of family violence in section 5 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. It also sits alongside economic, psychological, emotional, physical and sexual abuse. As we know, all these forms of abuse or control can interact and form parts of coercive control or be singular offences in and of themselves. Section 5 does provide that framework for those things to be identified and recognised, and as I said, we need to be really, really clear that coercive and controlling behaviour is family violence. It is not either/or. It is a form of family violence. It is recognised as family violence in the current policy settings in Victoria. As I said, it is recognised by the law, can already constitute a criminal offence and is recognised in our risk assessment frameworks.

It is also really important that we communicate clearly to victim-survivors in Victoria that these behaviours are recognised, because they can be dealt with by the law and there is help and support available. If we somehow want to say—perhaps inadvertently even—that there might be a gap, we risk then people not coming forward and getting the help that they need or the protection that they need and deserve. So as I said, we need to be careful in the way in which we talk about this issue. As I said earlier, when it comes to the public conversation around coercive control it is really important that we treat the issue with a nuance and acknowledge these inherent complexities, some of the matters I spoke to just a moment ago. As the conversation around Australia continues to grow and it gathers traction, the narrative has at times been oversimplified and often frames coercive control, as I said earlier, as a standalone tactic. But it is complex; it is multifaceted. It is important to emphasise, as I said earlier, coercive control can coexist with almost all forms of family violence. It is that complex interaction, but it can coexist and it can stand alone.

We acknowledge that as family violence reform progresses here in Victoria we must also ensure that the totality of victim-survivors’ experiences is captured by the system and that it responds to family violence and continues to do so. Several victim-survivors have identified that for too many the response to their family violence was too incident based, for example, and failed to capture the full picture of the abuse they endured. One victim-survivor in her evidence to the royal commission said:

It is the prevalence and the all-encompassing awareness that you are living with something that is dangerous—life threatening. That fact slowly and methodically eats away at your self-awareness and ability to make decisions. All your decisions are about self-preservation and how safe you are from day to day and hour to hour.

I could not imagine living with that fear and constant level of threat arousal in my day-to-day life. It would be all-encompassing, it would be exhausting and you would constantly be walking on eggshells. This is why we have got to continue in the work that we are doing to increase support and assistance for victim-survivors of family violence. As I said, this can have a significant and detrimental impact on a victim-survivor’s perception of their own experience of family violence relative to others. I know that I have had constituents in my own region talk to me about their family violence experiences, and although having survived perhaps and come out of an abusive relationship, oftentimes there is ongoing PTSD that results from living with those violent and coercive controlling behaviours which people need assistance to manage. So once you have left a coercive controlled relationship or a relationship that is full of family violence, whilst there is some hope, oftentimes the path is not straightforward and easy. There are still ongoing issues to deal with.

The Royal Commission into Family Violence considered but did not recommend implementation of a standalone coercive control offence, and as I said earlier, our legislation already deals with that, because there is a range of provisions that recognise that controlling behaviour can be standalone but it can also interact with other forms. But we will always consider further ways to end family violence. We will continue to consider advice from the experts, the community and victim-survivors of family violence about the necessary reform to keep women and children safe. So it will be an evolving situation, and we recognise that we have to get existing systems working to recognise and respond to coercive control. Any further legislative changes would only be considered after extensive consultation with victim-survivors, professionals and experts in the area. Domestic Violence Victoria CEO Tania Farha stated:

A new law is not where we should be starting in Victoria, where there is already recognition of coercive control in our legislation. The focus needs to be on improving how existing laws are applied.

Again, when it comes to coercive control, Domestic Violence Victoria noted:

Safe and just outcomes for victim survivors requires a whole of systems and community response—where everyone has a shared understanding of what coercive control is and looks like, and how to assess and manage associated risks.

So I want to recognise and pay respect to those victim-survivors of family violence— (Time expired)

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:34): I am pleased to be able to rise and speak to Ms Maxwell’s motion this afternoon. She spoke with such passion and commitment, and she has been speaking about this for a very long time. I know—I was in the streets marching with Ms Maxwell before she entered this place, in defence and in support of those affected by family violence. So she has always been committed to this cause, and I think she showed that through her commitment in her contribution this afternoon to this very important matter. She mentioned some of the people that have been affected by this—the women who have been affected, who are in Queen’s Hall. Lee, Michelle and Jana are in watching this debate this afternoon.

I want to congratulate Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house. Can I say that the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting the motion because it is asking for a review into this important area around coercive control. I know that parliaments around the country are looking into this area. In New South Wales, as Ms Maxwell said, the parliamentary inquiry that looked into it made a suite of recommendations. The government is reviewing those recommendations and will bring down its report and speak to that from those findings. There were dozens of findings actually in that very thorough inquiry that was conducted in New South Wales. Likewise in Queensland they are also looking at this issue.

But it brought me back. I know the government is saying that they had the family violence royal commission, which we were all very supportive of, and despite the commentary—the unfortunate, unnecessary commentary—in the lead-up to the 2018 election there was bipartisan support for that important royal commission. The government has not undertaken, has not been able to undertake or has failed to implement all 227 of the recommendations. There are still a couple of dozen that are outstanding, and they are important. I note that Domestic Violence Victoria, in this year’s budget, was calling for an urgent response to a flawed funding system. They are saying things that the government has not promised. I think that is the danger with this.

The government keeps talking about the big picture. They keep making these very big promises and the expectation is there but they just cannot meet it, and as a result people are let down and the system is failing. And it is failing, because if you look at the latest crime statistics, the number of family violence offences leading up to 30 June of this year increased from 88 205 to 93 440, a 5.9 per cent increase. That is on the Crime Statistics Agency website. We know that lockdowns really exacerbated some terrible situations behind closed doors, and that family violence rates increased is no surprise as a result of the stresses and the pressures of extended lockdown. Extraordinary numbers of people spoke to me about their concerns. If you look now at the sad statistics of marriage break-ups, I think that says a lot about what has happened over the last 20 months and the failure of the government to understand not only the health impacts but the social impacts and the mental health impacts of their decisions to lock Victoria down, and they want to do it again.

This motion about coercive control reform reminded me of what I was doing as the shadow minister at the time, and that was the Liberal-Nationals took a policy to the last state election regarding the ‘Right to Ask, Right to Know’, based on Clare’s Law. It reminded me of a remarkable woman that I met, Samantha Handley. Her story is extraordinary. It talks about those elements that Ms Maxwell spoke of: the psychological impacts, the power of coercion, feeling that she could not leave her partner who was abusive. She did not know he was abusive at the time, but she felt that he had such a powerful control over her, and that is part of what this motion is about—that coercive control. Samantha Handley was extraordinary in herself because she was a woman that felt after she left her first marriage with her children that, as she says, she was in a loving relationship before his control over her slowly built up and she realised he had become abusive. That is what Ms Maxwell is speaking about and that is what this coercive control really shows. Samantha said in an article on 14 October 2016:

At first I refused to take any notice. I really liked this guy and he had a hold on me.

This built up and her family started to get worried about it and she started to realise that something was not quite right, so she started to do a Google search and found that this man had been charged with some very violent offences in New South Wales.

That was the reason why I presented that policy as part of a suite of measures that could assist women in these violent situations and improve outcomes. Sadly, it was dismissed out of hand, and the then minister, Minister Hutchins, virtually ridiculed what we were presenting. I was really disappointed with the government’s response. It was again this assumption, this arrogance, that they know best, that this is their space. Well, no-one owns any space when it comes to violence or abuse against women or anyone. It is what we need to do to improve the status and situation, and unfortunately the situation is getting worse.

I want to just place on record again the enormous gratitude that I have for Samantha Handley for coming out and telling her story and being part of that voice. Hers is a very powerful story about what Ms Maxwell is talking about today in her motion: the coercive abuse, the coercive powers and how that can really be a very insidious sort of abuse that is silent. It is not there, but it is very powerful. As Samantha said, she felt so isolated because of these coercive powers.

In closing I want to again commend Ms Maxwell for her advocacy in this regard and for outlining the argument that she has. But I do want to say that I think it is disappointing. The crime stats do not lie. They are the numbers, and the numbers are getting worse. Despite all that has been said, the numbers are getting worse, and that is something that I think needs to be noted, and I think that everybody acknowledges and understands that more needs to be done. There are still recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence which were handed down in 2015, so six years ago, that are outstanding. This government might talk the big talk, but it is actually results and outcomes that matter. When the figures and the stats are there from the crime stats agency to say that it is not getting better, it is getting worse, then maybe we need to look at exactly what is going on.

Again I say, on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals, we support Ms Maxwell’s motion to recognise the prevalence of coercive control in family violence offending, that perpetrators of family violence may offend against multiple family members and intimate partners and that disclosure of relevant information about the criminal history of a perpetrator is a key indicator in family violence risk assessment and management—those red flags that she spoke of. The motion calls on the government to review legislative and procedural frameworks in relation to family violence to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour is available to illustrate the experience of family violence, and finally, to consider the suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system.

I hope the government does not disregard Ms Maxwell’s suggestions like they disregarded the policy I took to the 2018 election.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion on coercive control and family violence. I will be supporting this motion today. Coercive control is a pattern of domination that includes tactics to isolate, degrade, exploit and control a person. It is a non-physical form of violence. This motion seeks not to criminalise coercive control but to consider how evidence of coercive and controlling behaviour illustrates the experience of family violence. This is based upon coercive control being a predictor of severe physical violence and homicide. Coercive control is not a one-off; it is an ongoing, relentless pattern of controlling and manipulative behaviours that renders victims powerless.

I recognise that this concept is difficult to find and identify as it is based on patterns and context, although I think it is addressed appropriately in this motion. Coercive control is absolutely a foundational element of family violence, and it should be recognised as such. The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence found that family violence differs from other forms of violence as it is generally underpinned by a pattern of coercion, control and domination by one person over another. This makes clear the role of coercive control in family violence. This motion seeks to understand the relationship between coercive control and family violence. If we ignore the role of controlling behaviour and focus only on physical violence, we do not do justice to the victim of abuse. This can have lethal consequences.

The Royal Commission into Family Violence cited the findings of a UK study that found that the extent of the father’s control over the family rather than the frequency of family violence was an indicator that the father was at risk of killing his own children. This tells us that there is much reason to look at new legislative and procedural frameworks that could analyse how coercive control feeds into family violence as well as how coercive control can illustrate to some the extent of the presence of family violence.

It appears that in other jurisdictions more is being done to address coercive control. New South Wales has a joint committee on coercive control, the Northern Territory is considering options for criminalising coercive control, a private members bill to criminalise coercive control is before the Parliament of South Australia, Queensland has launched an independent task force and the ACT has announced in-principle support for criminalising coercive control.

I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this important discussion to the Victorian Parliament for us today. These discussions are the first steps to be made in addressing this issue and certainly assisting in education on this issue. I would like to see every professional who comes into contact with victims of family violence, such as health professionals, social workers, lawyers, judges, police and victim-survivor services, to understand the nature of coercive control. They should understand that it controls victims and traps them in a relationship that can be very difficult to get out of. Of course training alone will not shift outcomes. There needs to be organisational change, accountability and transparency. We must do whatever we can to reduce violence against women in this country. That is why I will be supporting this motion today, and I commend this motion to the house.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (14:48): I too rise to speak on Ms Maxwell’s motion before the house today on family violence. Can I begin by just very quickly saying thank you for all the well wishes that I have received from across the chamber during my absence.

I want to thank Ms Maxwell for her continued strong advocacy in this very, very important area of public policy. I know from speaking to some of the men in the Parliament around the place about this issue—each and every time we have a conversation—that it is so important that we continue to have this conversation, that we never stop having this conversation. It is very confronting. It is very confronting for the men in this chamber and in this Parliament that I have had conversations with to think that there are those among us, there are men in our society, who exhibit and practice these sorts of behaviours in their weak and cowardly attempts to control women and children in our society. It is very important that we continue to have this conversation, that we never stop.

One of the most confronting statistics I think in this debate is to think that since we have been going, and we are now some 47 minutes into this discussion, there have been eight incidents, statistically, of family violence in Victoria—just in the time that we have been having this conversation. That is about 206 incidents every day here in this state, and we must never stop, we must never rest, until that number hits zero.

Ms Maxwell: That’s the reported ones.

Mr GEPP: That is exactly right, that is just the reported number. Ms Maxwell is quite correct. We do not know about all of those that are unreported. But we must never stop trying and doing everything that we possibly can to bring that number to zero.

I want to acknowledge the courage, the strength and the bravery of the victim-survivors who are with us today in Queen’s Hall but also all of those victim-survivors of family violence and those that are no longer with us. It is just abhorrent to anyone, any decent human being, to think that any person in our society would seek to exercise control over another to the extent of their own gain and benefit and that they would choose to do so with violence in particular.

I do want to congratulate the Victorian government’s Minister for Prevention of Family Violence and Minister for Women, the honourable Gabrielle Williams. She is steadfast in her determination to do as much as she can in this space. I know from talking to the minister that she does not rest on what we have done to date. She is always striving for better outcomes for women, for children, for victim-survivors of family violence and for their families. That is evidenced I think by the fantastic work that she has led in response to the royal commission and the work that she will continue to lead.

The government is also very much focused on improving our system that identifies and responds to things such as coercive control, the matter that Ms Maxwell has brought before us. We do remain open to evidence-based solutions to ensure victim-survivors’ whole experience of violence is seen and acknowledged by the system—not just a little bit, not just some of it, but all of it—and that includes of course their experience through the justice system. That is a big component. As we know from victim-survivors themselves, it is a big component of their experience.

I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in terms of the plea-bargaining that Ms Maxwell referred to earlier there is legislation that has been brought to the other place. Again, my understanding could be wrong, but I think if matters are not to go to trial it requires the agreement of all the parties involved so that there is an agreed plea—that is, if the victim-survivor does not agree then that plea agreement, if you like, would not be advanced, and it would go to trial. That is my understanding of it. I just think it is important to put that on the record. We know that the experiences, as I said, of the justice system are such a crucial part of a victim-survivor’s journey—having that day in court, but feeling that real sense of justice.

We all remember not too long ago when the conversation was about, ‘Oh, what did she do? Why didn’t she leave? Why didn’t she’—well, it cannot be about the victim-survivor. It can never be about the victim-survivor. It has got to be about the perpetrator, and it has got to be about the behaviours that that person not only exhibits but practises in the home. I think all of us would know of somebody, either in our immediate circles or maybe in our extended circles, that has experienced some sort of domestic violence, and it is absolutely abhorrent. And to think that it is such a leading contributor to injury and death of women in our community is just extraordinary—particularly those in the age group of 15 to 44. It is just quite staggering.

So we have spent a lot of money and we have done a lot of things, but it is not enough, because in this country one in four women will experience some form of physical or sexual violence by a current or a former partner. We also know, in terms of coercive control, that it is a feature of most of those occurrences of domestic violence. Mr Barton, Ms Maxwell, Ms Crozier and Ms Terpstra talked about the elements of coercive control, and I will not go through all of those again, but it is a clear feature—it is a very clear feature—of the experiences of victim-survivors. Whether it is money, whether it is psychological, whether it is physical abuse—whatever controlling mechanism that these cowards are using—it is all part of them putting themselves in a dominant position to be able to control, particularly, women and children.

We must do everything that we can. We must never rest until we can find better ways to assist women experiencing and children experiencing those environments. We have got to change the behaviours and it has got to come with respect, and every time we see violence that is being used—I do not care, you know, whether it is a set of gallows out the front or any other type of violence—we have got to call it out for what it is. We have got to say, ‘That’s unacceptable’. It is unacceptable because each and every time we see those sorts of things in our society it enables those that have those tendencies to run away and indeed play out those very features in their own lives.

It behoves all of us, I think, to raise the standard, to show a bit more respect, to understand that we are in a pluralist society and to understand that we are all equal. The bigotry, the hatred and the domination only come from when we are actually supposed to be better, when we are growing up, when we are mature adults, and it only seems to get worse when we get to that point. So thank you, Ms Maxwell, for your strong advocacy in this area. May it always continue, as I know it will. I look forward to continuing this very, very important conversation with you and the Parliament.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:58): I am also very pleased to join this important debate brought on by Ms Maxwell. As Mr Gepp has said—and numerous other members—Ms Maxwell is a tireless advocate for victims of crime across the board. I know that she has particularly strong views, and they are well founded, when it comes to family violence and the prevention of violence against women and children. I have the pleasure and privilege of sitting on the Legal and Social Issues Committee with Ms Maxwell, and despite the fact that in another life I was a different government’s adviser on the prevention of violence against women and children, this particular element, a really important element and really pervasive element of family violence—which exactly as Mr Gepp said is sadly still such a widespread societal problem—is not one, I do not mind saying, that I had great knowledge about. It has been incredibly useful for me and instructive for me to sit on that committee, to engage with Ms Maxwell and the chair, Ms Patten, and a range of other members of that committee but also to hear from experts, in particular experts who I know Ms Maxwell has a long history with.

I find myself in so many of these matters agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr Gepp. I enjoy following Mr Gepp, because he makes on these matters incredibly strong and heartfelt contributions that we would all do well to heed and to listen to. I am convinced, as he is, that these sorts of behaviours, as abhorrent as they are, are incredibly widespread.

Even though in matters of law, of jurisprudence, I am a traditionalist, I do think we have to acknowledge that our current systems and structures over many years have failed in particular women who have been the victims of family violence and forms of sexual assault. Members of the government—Ms Terpstra—entirely appropriately, notably, have spoken about the government’s undoubted commitment to continue to do better when it comes to family violence. I will not recapitulate some of the points that Ms Crozier made in articulating, rightly so, our shared commitment to continue to do better.

We have come so far. We see unacceptably high rates of family violence in our community. The analysis of that data is difficult because for a time—I daresay things have changed now—many within the family violence sector thought that at least in some respects, and I will seek to choose my words very carefully here, as we saw that data increase, demonstrating the pervasive nature of family violence in our community, that demonstrated at least one thing that was not entirely negative, and that was that some systems were changing to enable more victim-survivors to come forward and to seek help. I daresay we have now reached a point in the community where we no longer hear that sort of messaging from family violence groups. Ultimately of course we want to drive down both the published data and, far more importantly, the real incidence of family violence in the community. I am most certainly not against the notion of looking, as Ms Maxwell said, at the full suite of initiatives and opportunities available to enhance the understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour in our community and the justice system to see how we can do better, because as we have heard on the Legal and Social Issues Committee—this is something I have discussed with Ms Patten as well—it is devilishly difficult for the police and other support services so oftentimes to get to the bottom of what has occurred in interpersonal relationships.

That is one of the reasons why I was very pleased to read in the newspapers over the weekend that the Attorney-General is also looking at innovative reforms in the broader space of sexual assault when thinking about consent and how again we can hopefully change some legal processes to deliver justice for more Victorian women and, more than that, of course to seek to put in place programs and, more importantly—I think Mr Gepp was right—to embark upon what will be undoubtedly a longstanding mission of seeking to change attitudes in the community. There has been a longstanding bipartisan agreement in Victoria that central to family violence, to sexual assault, are attitudinal problems that so many men have. There has been a longstanding bipartisan position in this place that violence against women and sexual assault is gendered violence. It is hard, as Mr Gepp said, to kind of rationalise just how prevalent that violence is in our community. I agree therefore that we all have a deep commitment not to laugh along at that joke that probably 15 or 20 years ago was pretty normal and that in sports clubs or when you were out with your mates you laughed along to and to seek to stand up whenever you hear attitudes expressed that are harmful, because I think we are all in agreement that we have such a long way to go.

Our current legal structures do not function well enough to support victim-survivors and also to seek to drive down the incidence of family violence. Furthermore, they do not function well enough to support victim-survivors of sexual assault. Just looking at the numbers of women, overwhelmingly, who come forward to report sexual assault and then ultimately prosecution rates, they are unacceptable to me and they are unacceptable to the coalition. I do not want to speak for the Attorney-General, but I know that they are unacceptable to her as well, so I welcomed the announcement she made over the weekend and look forward to working alongside her as we seek to do better, certainly in the broad area of the prevention of violence against women and children and here in this specific area that Ms Maxwell has been talking about for so long. It is not an area that gets as much attention as some other forms of violence against women, and I think that is understandable. I hear from friends and sources in the legal community some of their arguments about why it has been historically so difficult to get at the nub of this issue and to seek to combat it, but that does not mean that we should not seek to do better. In fact it means the opposite—that we should take on that challenge, look at all options, be open to change and be open to legal innovation, where that is appropriate, to do far better than we are doing right now for victim-survivors.

Just as I finish, in talking about legal matters and matters of jurisprudence it would be simply remiss of me not to remark upon the passing of Sir James Gobbo recently, a great Victorian, obviously a justice of the Supreme Court and ultimately a Governor. We will have the opportunity to engage in a condolence debate for Sir James next week. I commend Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house and reiterate that I think it deserves our support.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:06): I am pleased to rise to make a short contribution to Ms Maxwell’s motion. From the outset I would like to acknowledge Lee, Michelle and Jana, who I have seen wandering around the Parliament today, and I certainly saw them outside this morning. I am pleased that they actually can be here today to hear us speak, probably all so passionately, about this incredibly difficult and important issue.

As we know, coercive and controlling behaviour is sadly a prominent feature in almost all family violence, but it is one of the hardest things to identify. It is one of the hardest things, even for people who are experiencing it, to fully articulate what is happening to them—‘It’s just that he loves me so much, that he cares about me so much’. I am very fortunate to be chairing the inquiry into criminal justice, a referral that came from Ms Maxwell, and I do not think it should come as any surprise that the witnesses that we have heard from, the submissions that we have received, all talk about family violence and coercive behaviour. So I am really pleased that Ms Maxwell has brought this issue to the chamber, and I am happy to lend my encouragement to the government to do something on this.

I think it is interesting to note that in the most recent National Summit on Women’s Safety, which was held just one or two months ago, it was seen as one of the most complex and urgent issues. That was how it was described in the paper that followed that summit. We have seen several Victorian organisations, including Respect Victoria, united—

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, Acting President, I am sitting very close to Ms Patten and it is difficult to hear her, and I just think particularly given the topic we are discussing, which goes along the lines of respect, could we just have a little bit less noise?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Fair point. Could we keep it down so we can hear Ms Patten, please.

Ms PATTEN: Thank you, Ms Maxwell, and thank you, Acting President. As I was saying, there have been a number of organisations who have really come to the fore and are speaking loudly about this—Respect Victoria, Domestic Violence Victoria and Djirra in particular. I think they have all looked at this. And I know that Ms Maxwell is passionate about prevention and early intervention, and this is another area where this is so crucial, because the criminal justice system, as we know, currently fails so many victims. And it is sometimes a blunt instrument, and what we need to be doing is stopping this from happening. But we know that that is not easy. This involves cultural change. This involves education. This involves change and equality, gender equality, and it goes into so many different areas. So prevention in this context is complicated, but it has to be something that we focus on.

As I say, legislating can have that effect and it can shift norms and it can shift attitudes, but we need to shift those norms and those attitudes and those behaviours before they turn into what they are turning into. It is interesting—and I do not know whether it is because of the work we are doing in the criminal justice system—that I am seeing coercive control being discussed, being dramatised, being seen in mainstream media. You know, Netflix has a really excellent program called Maid. It is a US drama that looks at coercive control, and it goes through the various stages of that control with the main character in it. Over recent weeks I have not been listening to it but, when I was able to walk home from work in the evenings and was comfortable doing it, I would listen to TheTrap by Jess Hill, another extraordinary podcast, an extraordinary detailed story. Well, it is not a story, it is a whole podcast focusing on coercive control—how it affects the children, how it affects the families, and also it goes to how we can try and find some solutions. As I said, it is addressing those underlying attitudes, which is what we need to do, but again it will be one of the most complicated things that we do.

I was just looking at some of the press releases that came out following that national summit, and certainly what we have been hearing during the criminal justice inquiry is that we need to be looking at broadening the scope of how we address this. And I note—and I use this quote because sadly Djirra, which is an extraordinary Aboriginal women’s advocacy organisation, was not able to appear before the committee at our last public hearing—that Antoinette Braybrook said that the conversation around coercive control had to be broadened:

Instead of putting money into the criminal justice system, invest in Aboriginal Community Controlled, self-determined solutions that we know work for our women, families and communities.

The executive director of the Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health, Dr Adele Murdolo, who did appear before our committee, also went on to say:

Migrant and refugee women and their communities are already leading the way in preventing violence, and it’s time to listen and learn from them. Whole of community and tailored approaches are needed, to ensure that we address the structural inequalities that enable violence against migrant and refugee women.

We know the impact that this has on women. As Ms Maxwell and I am certain Ms Crozier raised, family violence is still the leading contributor to death for women 15 to 44—the leading contributor. It is not breast cancer. It is not smoking. It is not heart disease. It is family violence. It is also the leading contributor to women experiencing homelessness. It is the leading contributor to women being imprisoned. Almost every woman currently in our Victorian prison is a victim—a victim-survivor.

During our inquiry we have heard harrowing stories from women who have been in the prison system. The fact that they had experienced extraordinary coercive control or violence just never kind of made it to the top. It was never really heard when they were being sentenced to prison, and that is what we need to be doing.

Part of Ms Maxwell’s call to the government is looking at building up this evidence base for the types and appearances of this type of behaviour—who perpetrates it and what drives them—and community education initiatives to increase public understanding of these behaviours and their unacceptability. Again I would commend Jess Hill’s podcast as well as the drama that I saw called Maid. Both go to increasing this public understanding. And working with organisations to ensure that they do not tacitly or overtly condone or foster attitudes and social norms that fuel coercive control—we have heard that today and we have heard that during the inquiry. It is not for people wanting to ignore and knowingly ignoring these issues; it is just that they do not understand. On behalf of Victorian women, we deserve better, and we in this chamber should be leading this change, driving this change in community attitudes to women.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:16): I would like to start by thanking Ms Maxwell for bringing this important motion into the Legislative Council on the prevalence of coercive control in family violence and among the perpetrators of family violence and that it may affect multiple members within the household. The motion goes on to speak about other legislative and procedural frameworks that can improve the lives and the outcomes of those that this is severely affecting.

When I think about this topic, coercive control, the words roll out of the dictionary: ‘interrogation’, ‘manipulation’, ‘blackmail’, ‘controlling somebody else’s will’. I guess the crux of it for me is that there is a power imbalance. We go into relationships or there are family relationships where there will by nature sometimes be a different balance. A parent-child imbalance—the parent is supposed to be the carer, the nurturer, the caregiver, the love giver, the security giver. That is in the ideal world, and for many families that is how it is. But we know that for thousands upon thousands of families that is not the way it is and there is a power imbalance, and at the end of it the child is deeply affected by family violence and, in this case, by coercive control.

There is the other side of it when the parent gets older and they become dependent on the adult child and we see elder abuse. There also can be a power imbalance there. For those of us who are, as I consider myself to be, normal, the thought that that could happen is just horrific in the extreme. But it can happen, and it does happen.

The torque between a couple where there is that power imbalance can happen very, very slowly. It can happen like tightening the screw on a nut. And gaslighting comes to my mind—it is a term that I have reflected on in recent years—where your own mentality is twisted because of that power imbalance. You are told things and your vulnerability leads you down paths of emotional abuse, financial abuse, intimidation or sexual abuse. This is not an equal sharing; this is when somebody’s will has been manipulated and controlled, and it can happen. As we have said, it is not just this domestic abuse and this coercion; it can be quite subtle.

It can have a huge effect on the children around couples where that happens, so what should be a warm and nurturing environment can be very cold and almost like living in a parallel world to what you think the rest of the society is operating in. Many reports have talked about children being that collateral damage in these coercive relationships. Reports have said that coercion is the precursor to abusive crimes, to violence in a relationship, and we have seen that.

If I can also start by mentioning that we talk about victim-survivors. In the end, one really hopes that those victim-survivors can become victim-thrivers and that they can move through that terrible, terrible time in their life and go to a better place where they are victims but they are thrivers. They have moved on and created a better life. Now, for that to happen, some of the work in the background needs to be on the perpetrator. Can the perpetrator be repurposed? Can there be prevention at the outset when that power imbalance really starts to flow and go? Can that happen? That is when we need people in society to be aware and awake, whether it be their GP, whether it be a social worker, whether it be friends or family or in an education setting—to be aware of these sorts of things and to have the antenna up to say, ‘Is that person acting reasonably or well, or is that person looking like they are under pressure and trying to keep away or hide what is happening at home?’. As Ms Maxwell and others have said, there are statistics around the evident perpetrators and the evident examples, but I would surmise, just off the top my head, that for any one case there are probably 10 to 20 to 30 cases that we do not see in the courts or in our hospitals or wherever else we see them.

I would just like to thank a young university student called Charles Rankcom, who is studying criminology. It is really great to see that there are young men—in particular this one—studying this topic. He has presented some interesting facts for me as well today. Alarmingly we have seen that there has been a 9 per cent increase in family violence related offences recorded during the 12 months of COVID to the end of June 2021. We have seen during this reporting period 25 additional reported family violence offences occurring each and every day—that is 25 extra. Crime stats agencies also revealed a significant increase in several offences, including family violence related common assault, up 5 per cent, and breaches of family violence related orders, up 15 per cent.

When you think of some of the cases, I know Ms Maxwell has brought in survivors who need to be part of this story, and we have heard of other examples from Ms Crozier. One that stands out in my mind, and we saw it on television a year ago, is that terrible case where Hannah Clarke in New South Wales and her children died at the hands of her estranged husband. This person was not able to be rehabilitated. They went down that path. I just always feel so terribly devastated for the parents of Hannah and for her extended family—her life gone and her children’s lives gone. This must be a continual catapult to us as legislators and as a government to do better in this realm and stop these cases.

The Victorian Family Violence Protection Act 2008 talks about family violence as physical, emotional, economic, threatening or coercive. But coercive control is not viewed as a criminal offence, and there is very much discussion around the importance of or the need for perpetrators to be held accountable and responsible for their harmful behaviour. Indeed Domestic Violence Victoria and the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria put out quite an extensive paper that in truth I have not had the chance to really delve into due to other issues happening this week, but there are some really important responses that they have unpacked. They assessed the effectiveness of criminalising coercive control in addressing these gaps from a victim-survivor-centred perspective. The gaps identified in the report centred around the inadequacy of current responses to coercive control, resulting in victim-survivor experiences not being adequately recognised or responded to safely and consistently and perpetrators not being held to account. Given the high levels of coercive control and family violence and homicide, it is so important to get in early and to provide those significant and compelling lessons to be learned for perpetrators.

In concluding I just want to also make some comments around some of the great services that we have in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region and put a big shout-out and a thankyou to the Gippsland Centre Against Sexual Assault for providing that specialist support. Now, not all coercive behaviour ends with sexual assault, but there is often a direct link—that if those behaviours continue and exacerbate, certainly sexual assault can occur. I know I have spoken with members in that great unit from time to time. They have an outreach service. They have amazing services. They get to the nub and they listen to people who need to be validated, respected and understood.

The other point I make is that we do not need to judge. You do not know when that woman comes into your shop and you serve her shoes what her experience has been like at home. You do not know that. If she is behaving a bit quirky, maybe we need to extend a level of sympathy or care or ask, ‘Are you okay?’ or just give a big smile or some care, because we do not know what people’s lives are like at home. I wish for all the victim-survivors to become victim-thrivers in the future. We need to listen to them. I thank Ms Maxwell for bringing this motion to the house today.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:27): Acknowledging that we are almost at the closure of this debate and there is so much more to be said on this incredibly important issue—family violence per se, but also those inherent elements of family violence, namely coercive control—I did just really want to acknowledge the courage and conviction of all those victim-survivors who have helped drive these incredibly important reforms and helped to shape a much brighter future for all Victorians. I do also want to acknowledge those victims who have come in today. We really appreciate their courage. I know that it probably just brings up a lot of memories and a lot of the incredibly difficult experiences that they have had to go through and survive, so we are very, very grateful for them coming here today. Thank you also for continuing this conversation, Ms Maxwell. We appreciate that.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:28): I want to thank everyone for their contributions on this important issue of coercive control today. There have been some really relevant and poignant words in your contributions. I would like to quickly just go back to what I was saying in my speech previously about the impacts of coercive control that extend to children. The child I mentioned, young Liam, was not recognised as a victim in his own right despite being subject to the coercive controlling offending of his stepfather and witnessing violence against his mother and sister time and time again.

Unless the whole picture of their offending is presented the context is never completely understood, nor considered, particularly within our courts. This is not just about sentencing or sentence length; it is also about accountability and rehabilitation. If our system does not see the full picture, how does our system really work to create change? How is rehabilitation achieved? How does an offender have insight or take true accountability? How do conditions on a community correction order properly reflect the big picture if it is not known? How do perpetrator programs address offending if the big picture is not understood?

So what now? Jurisdictions across Australia are actively considering how coercive control is addressed within their existing frameworks, as others have also mentioned here today. The UK criminalised coercive control, Tasmania has a course of conduct offence and the Northern Territory and Queensland are both reviewing their legislation to determine criminalisation of the offence. The Scottish course of conduct offence is considered the gold standard.

Whether coercive control is criminalised or not, we still need to ensure that the context of behaviour is presented in courts. The gap needs to close. We have to have that evidence being made admissible. We have to have judges trained to understand the impacts of coercive control. In educating our community about the violence that is coercive control there has to be an end-to-end response that includes our justice system.

The best result of coercive control offending, course of conduct offending, family violence offending—all violent offending—is for it to stop. The best way to protect victims is to stop offending from occurring in the first place. That is a big project. That is a big goal—a goal on which for every week that someone dies at the hands of their partner or a stranger we should remain firmly fixed, for the memory of every victim and for the loved ones left behind.

I look forward to the review of government and hope that it is inclusive of the voices of victim-survivors and that the issues they face are carefully considered, be it in dealing with police, child protection, prosecutors or in our courts. Ensuring the legal responses and preventative measures complement each other is so imperative. There are varying views on how we address this, but the goal is the same—to reduce the incidence of violence and improve the safety and lives of others.

I want to thank Minister Williams for her conversations with me. They have been ongoing on this specific topic and other topics around family violence. We have gone back and forwards for probably a good 18 months or more, and I am extremely inspired every time I speak to her about her goals that she wants to achieve and the change that she wants to make—and she has a very specific approach that has to be evidence informed, evidence based. Once again I congratulate her, and I am extremely thankful for the time that she has given me to introduce what I say is an extremely important motion. I hope everybody feels the same about that, and certainly from the contributions that we have had here today I do believe that people feel this as passionately as I do.

I would also like to just say a quick thankyou to Ms Crozier over there for recognising the advocacy that I have been doing on behalf of victims, probably since Daniel Morecombe died, which is many, many, many years ago, but also from events and tragedies that occurred within Wangaratta. I have been lobbying governments for many years now. On that note I thank the house, and I look forward to working with the government to see what we can achieve together.

Motion agreed to.

Loneliness

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:33): I rise to move my motion 654:

That this house notes that:

(1) loneliness has emerged as one of the most serious public health challenges being faced around the world;

(2) loneliness is a better predictor of premature death than physical inactivity, obesity or smoking 15 cigarettes a day;

(3) lonely Australians have significantly worse health status than Australians who do not experience loneliness;

(4) according to the 2018 Australian Loneliness Report, amongst Australian adults, one in four are lonely, nearly 30 per cent rarely or never feel part of a group of friends and 22 per cent rarely or never feel like they have someone to talk to;

(5) the 2019 Young Australians Loneliness Survey found that more than half of young Australians felt lonely sometimes or always;

(6) loneliness was a growing health challenge before COVID-19, but has been exacerbated by it;

(7) one in two Australian residents reported feeling lonelier since 2019, with those who reported feeling more lonely also reporting more depression and higher social anxiety;

(8) addressing loneliness is integral to Victoria’s COVID-19 recovery;

(9) in 2018 the United Kingdom government appointed a dedicated minister for loneliness and published the world’s first loneliness strategy;

(10) in January 2020, the first loneliness annual report outlined progress in the United Kingdom as a result of 60 commitments made in 2018 in establishing that ministry;

and calls on the Victorian government to create a dedicated ministerial portfolio for loneliness.

This is a motion around loneliness. It is a motion about an issue that quite often we know, we sometimes feel, but we do not understand. We are only just starting to understand the true impact of loneliness on our society. It has been called an epidemic in other areas, and it is why I am calling today for the Victorian government to take on this issue and to take it on at the level it needs to be taken on at—and that is as a portfolio in this government.

It is a killer. It is a killer, and its costs us millions and millions of dollars. We know the evidence; we know the evidence that it kills people and that it costs us millions and millions of dollars, particularly in our health system but also in our justice system. By addressing it—this carries on from some of the conversations we were having in Ms Maxwell’s motion—if we can look at early intervention, if we can look at prevention, if we can look at treating this, this will relieve the burden on our health system, a health system that is heavily weighed down at the moment.

So this motion, while relatively simple in its ask, actually could be profound. It is something that has already happened in the UK and in Japan, and it is something now that the World Health Organization will be recommending to all governments across the world. They have come out with this now, and they will be developing more information about this. So I think now is the right time for Victoria to do this.

Loneliness is killing us. Lonely Australians have a significantly worse health status than Australians who do not experience loneliness. According to the 2018 Australian Loneliness Report one in four Australians is lonely. This is not social isolation. Loneliness can affect people who are married. They can be surrounded by people, but that sense of loneliness is profound, it is stigmatising and it is something that people cannot talk about. I think particularly for young people, when they are looking at the curated best lives of their friends and people in their age group on their social media channels, they are seeing these wonderful, beautiful lives, and that is not their life. Their desire for social interaction is just not being met, and that creates a vicious circle, because they are anxious about seeking that social interaction. Then when they are socially interacting, they become anxious, and then that makes it worse.

We know that loneliness is a significant precursor to a lot of mental health issues, particularly anxiety and depression. In 2019 the Young Australian Loneliness Survey found that more than half of young Australians felt lonely sometimes or always. I think this is really important because when I first started looking at loneliness, probably in 2016, as an issue, I was seeing this emerge in the UK, I was seeing the talk happening over there, and I imagined it was someone like my dad. When my mum died he had no tour director for his life and he did not quite know how to get out there and make a life. But it is not just that older person whose significant other has left them or passed away. It is not just that person. It can be a person who is married. It can be a person surrounded by people, as I mentioned.

Loneliness has emerged as one of the most serious health challenges being faced around the world. Research finds that loneliness is a better predictor of premature death than physical inactivity, obesity or smoking 15 cigarettes a day. It is a better predictor of premature death. I find that smoking statistic incredibly significant and incredibly important, because you think about what we do to stop people smoking—the work, the public awareness campaigns, the packaging, the funds invested in Quit campaigns. Yet in contrast here we have a health problem of similar gravity that has just slid under the radar until now.

This motion comes, as I mentioned, as other developed nations around the world legislate dedicated resources to address the rates of loneliness. As I mentioned, in 2018 Britain announced the world’s first minister for loneliness through the appointment of Tracey Crouch. More recently, in 2020, Japan appointed Tetsushi Sakamoto into the same role. Japan did this because they could see the mental health impact of loneliness. They could see what it was doing. They actually linked their increase in suicide rates to loneliness, and that was what the research told them. I think in Victoria if we had a portfolio such as this it would work to ensure that adequate resources and funding effectively addressed loneliness here. I think this is particularly relevant right now, where we are in the pandemic.

If we look at the UK, where the most work has been done in this area, they estimated that the total cost of loneliness to their health and justice systems was £32 billion a year—£32 billion. So imagine, just putting in some resources, the payback that you can get there. And that is what predicated the United Kingdom’s government—and I note at that time it was a conservative government—appointment of a dedicated minister for loneliness. In fact they published the world’s first loneliness strategy. By 2020 their first loneliness annual report outlined significant progress as a result of the over 60 commitments they made to establishing a ministry. We can and we should do the same here.

I want to acknowledge Dr Michelle Lim and congratulate her on the extraordinary work she has been doing on the Ending Loneliness Together campaign. This is coming out of Monash University. She is a world leader in this area. When you are looking at different research documents you see her name in most of them. The Ending Loneliness Together in Australia white paper is compelling reading. It is factual and it covers everything. It traverses the stigma of loneliness in its various contexts. I would really implore anyone listening today to look up the ending loneliness white paper.

Globally the World Health Organization has already published relatively extensively on this issue, particularly in respect to social isolation and loneliness in older people. But they are currently broadening that work and they are looking at the wider population.

We know—and the evidence that has come out of the UK is—that lonely people attend doctors more regularly. They do not go there for health; they go there because they are experiencing loneliness. I know it is not right to bring the personal in, but I will because I think of my father, and his diary was filled with doctors appointments and health appointments. He went to the dietitian I do not know how many times. I mean, he never lost a pound out of it; he never followed any of the instructions he was given by that dietitian or the podiatrist or whoever he went to. But he had a diary full of health appointments, and I am not sure that he needed them, but he needed that context.

This is why it costs us so much. We were hearing from a group called the Victorian Advocacy League for Individuals with Disability, which represents people with an intellectual disability, and they were telling us that some of their members would feel this sense of loneliness to such an extent that they would call an ambulance in the middle of the night, because that was all they could do. It was the only way they could think of fixing this, of saving their own lives.

WHO have confirmed that social isolation and loneliness impose a heavy financial burden on society, and they have declared 2021–30 that policy window to address this issue, identifying increasing the political priority of the issue as the first of its three-point strategies. Dr Etienne Krug, the director of the World Health Organization’s Department of Social Determinants of Health, said:

Social isolation and loneliness have recently moved up the public policy and public health agenda in several countries … WHO calls on all governments to give social isolation and loneliness the political priority and resources that they deserve, to ensure that all people benefit from a shared spirit of friendship and solidarity.

And I would have to say that if there was ever a day to be talking about this, if there was ever a time to be talking about social cohesion and bringing our community back and extending friendship and solidarity, well, it is right now.

I would just like to quickly, in finishing, also recognise Benjamin McDonald, who was an intern in my office who prepared a really compelling intern report on this issue. He made some recommendations in that from the work that he had done, and that includes social prescribing. So this is about looking at when people attend to see their health practitioners, that they can prescribe social activities, that they can prescribe something other than medicine. And we know that we are seeing so many people experiencing loneliness being given Valium because of their perceived anxiety, when in actual fact that is not what they need. What they need is connection. What they need is assistance to connect. What they need is a stigma-free way to do that.

And there are already organisations in our community. We know them—neighbourhood houses, the men’s sheds, and I think one of my favourites is a group called the Kindred Clubhouse, which is for people with mental health issues. They have this sort of clubhouse, a drop-in style of approach, and it is beautiful, and it is run by its members. I know that in fact they have been funded federally and by the state here in Victoria, and it is something that came out of New York decades ago. In Poland they are setting up little chairs where people can sit, saying ‘Happy to have a chat’, ‘Would love to have a chat’. These are small things that we can do, but I think these are really important things that we need to do to improve the social cohesion of our community. And I think this is just such a significant issue, and it has been made more urgent around the world by COVID—around the world. This is not just something that is happening in Victoria. This is happening around the world, and that is why I think we should address it now.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:47): Thank you to Ms Patten for this really, really important work around an issue which every single one of us will either be directly impacted by or indirectly affected by as we know and understand members of our families, our friends, our partners, our loved ones and our colleagues have experienced and grappled with it from time to time.

I want to start, hopefully without sounding like a hubristic politician, by sharing my very, very favourite word in the whole world. It is a German word, and the word is ‘Sehnsucht’. It means a longing or a yearning, a desire for something which cannot be had, and Sehnsucht for me typifies the ache which cannot necessarily be quantified but which exists and indeed infuses the very way in which we go about our days and live our lives. There are lots of definitions for loneliness but, as Ms Patten has outlined, it is a complex social, psychological, health-related economic and community challenge.

Dr Michelle Lim of Swinburne University, as Ms Patten has identified, has done an extraordinary amount of work to highlight not just the prevalence of loneliness in modern society but also the challenges associated through stigma and through prejudice that arise when we are talking about the idea of that ache for human connection. We are hardwired as human beings to seek out connection, to find safety in a collective. And through the evolution of society and the industrial world we have found ways to move from the village green and to move from collective society, whereby we had no choice but to interact with others in a very regular and often very intimate way, to a segregated way of living, to a way which now includes medical conditions which include young people, particularly in Japan, particularly in Asia, not coming out of their rooms for years at a time. The inability to connect can be debilitating—is debilitating. The lack of human connection—and not social isolation, as Ms Patten has quite rightly pointed out—that ache for human connection that may be felt by somebody who is in general circulation, who is working, who does have people around them, can in fact lead into all sorts of other issues and other problems which reduce, which disadvantage, which compromise and tragically which can end life prematurely.

We have so much work to do to understand the nature of wellbeing, both what it is and what it is not. We have come a long way in relation to the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, which identified the importance of social cohesion and social connection in the way in which we improve health and wellbeing overall. As Ms Patten referenced, the happy-to-chat benches identified as an opportunity for social connection have been a really significant recognition in Poland. There are numerous other examples throughout continental Europe in particular. Here in our primary schools across Victoria there are the buddy benches, which are an integral part of playgrounds and open spaces, for young people to go to if they want to have a chat or if they are inviting others to chat with them. This is about connection. It is about those threads which satisfy our yearning to be included and ultimately to be understood and to be able to contribute.

I am going to give an example which again some might find strange. I am the mother of a couple of donkeys, and donkeys are by their nature exceptionally social. They require and demand company, and a donkey, when bonded as a pair with another donkey, will thrive. They frolic, they connect, they get up to all sorts of mischief. They discover the world. They have an unbridled curiosity, and their smarts go a huge way to seeing them get into all sorts of mischief.

Ms Pulford: But what are their names, for the parliamentary record?

Ms SHING: I am going to take up Minister Pulford’s interjection because, quite frankly, how can I not? ‘What are their names?’. Thank you, Minister. Their names are Samson and Mr Thomas, Sam and Tom for short—they are short. They are really short and they are really fantastic, and they in fact contribute as a panacea to the loneliness that I have felt on occasion, which is something else which I am hoping other speakers will go to, because the connections that we have with others do not have to be with people all the time.

However, to get back to my earlier point, this is the same situation as has occurred with primates, with chimpanzees, to whom we are also intimately connected. When a donkey loses its bonded partner it grieves. We have all seen footage on social media of primates grieving when they lose loved ones in their family and kinship circles. Where a donkey’s bonded partner dies and a donkey grieves, the depression can become so significant, the Sehnsucht can become so overwhelming, so overbearing, that a donkey will die. And this is in fact an example which I am hoping does not sound trite but which is all too relevant in the case of us as human beings in a collective which is geared towards the connections that we need and we require of each other in order to not just survive but thrive. It is in our evolutionary DNA. It is hardwired into us to seek out others, and where we cannot access others we see all sorts of natural consequences from that.

Loneliness, to speak in general terms around what we need to do in this sense, is something which other jurisdictions such as the UK have done an extraordinary amount to recognise, to fund, to support and indeed to incorporate into government decision-making. In the US one in four Americans is considered to be suffering loneliness or indeed to experience loneliness. We have situations of people calling 000 just for a voice on the other end of the phone. We have situations of people talking ad infinitum to telemarketers simply because it is the first human being they have heard from in days. We have an increasing recognition of the need for little kids to understand the importance of social connectedness and to develop the tools and the skills for that, and we have, in a macro context and through our commitment to implement every recommendation of the mental health royal commission, a series of initiatives and programs which are intended for and directly focused on early intervention and prevention of mental illness, of suicidal ideation and of the loss of life, which constitutes more than double our road toll.

Within this is the subset of loneliness. Within this is the lack of connection. Within this, inherently built into the work that we have to do as a social, as a progressive and as a connected government, is addressing and tackling that Sehnsucht, is doing what needs to be done to make sure that everybody, whether in a pandemic or in the very best of times, has an opportunity—not simply no other chance or as a last resort, an opportunity—to participate. Whether that is in a men’s shed, whether that is in a neighbourhood house, whether that is in a youth hub, whether that is in paid work, whether that is in a course, whether that is in study, whether that is in voluntary work, whether that is in our workplaces, in our aged-care retirement facilities, in our kindergartens and early learning centres, everybody deserves the opportunity to be part of something bigger and to be fulfilled and to be free of that ache. Everybody deserves the opportunity to have the support around them, in a pandemic or otherwise, which enables them to feel dignity and to feel a sense of worth and in fact to feel a sense of potential around what it is that they have to give, what it is that they do give and what it is that they might aspire to give into the future.

This is a really important motion from Ms Patten. I spoke many years ago about what I thought was the prevalent issue of our time prior to the pandemic, being loneliness. It is something which I look forward to our continued efforts on, and I look forward to seeing it manifest in ways which fundamentally improve people’s lives and recognise that we can and must do more together to tackle this ache that so many of us know all too well.

Sitting suspended 3.57 pm until 4.19 pm.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:19): I am very pleased to be able to rise and speak to the motion that is before the house this afternoon, motion 654 in Ms Patten’s name, which makes a number of points relating to loneliness. She has gone through some of those concerns which I would like to address as well.

Can I say at the outset that the Black Dog Institute have got a very good definition. They talk about loneliness in a whole range of ways. One of the things they say—and I think this is the crux of the problem—is that humans are social beings; we like to be around one another. Their definition in this paper says that:

Loneliness is that negative feeling that arises when our social needs are unmet by the quantity and quality of our current social relationships.

They talk about what puts people at risk of experiencing loneliness and the research that they have done. It is a well-regarded institute, and there is lots of research being done in this area, as we know. They say:

Research has found loneliness to be a modestly heritable trait which affects how distressed social disconnection makes you feel—but environment tends to play a larger role.

And there are certain things: the death of a loved one, mental illness—that is a very big issue, and I want to come to the point. But the other point they make is the extent of loneliness that so many people have experienced due to the lockdowns.

Now, this house has heard me say on many occasions that I was very concerned about the mental health of Victorians in lockdown 2, and we were calling on measures around that to get people on board. And while we are discussing the pandemic bill, it does not take away from all of those issues that we raised about where that advice is. Where is the advice on the impacts to the mental health of the children, to those people that have lost their business and, importantly, for those people that have lost a loved one? And where are those experts that have been advising the government? Well, they trotted out the chief psychiatrist a few weeks ago after it got a bit too hot for the government, but they had not before that. And this is fundamentally a mental health issue; it is tied up in mental health. But the impacts of the lockdowns cannot be underestimated.

Melbourne, the longest locked down city in the world—that is nothing to be proud of. So is it any wonder that some of this research that they have done, the recent research that has been done, and the figures that are coming out of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that in Victoria the mental ill health statistics have skyrocketed, and disturbingly amongst young people. A lot of that is around the aspects of COVID and loneliness, a feeling of despair and loss of hope, uncertainty and being disconnected from family and loved ones.

As I said, humans are ultimately social beings. Some cope very well being alone, but others do not. They need people around them, and you have had young people locked in small units on their own. I have spoken to doctors and pharmacists who have told me they have never dispensed so many antidepressants to young women through the lockdowns. So we do not need a minister for loneliness, for heaven’s sake. We have got a mental health crisis that is exacerbating the loneliness aspect in our state, and some of the statistics, in the short time that I have to speak to this motion, I want to put on record, because it goes to the very heart of this point.

I know that Ms Patten actually mentioned what is happening in the UK and the UK strategy. Well, they had three ministers in a year. They did not last very long in the portfolio, so I am not sure how successful it is. I suppose time will tell. She did mention Ending Loneliness Together, and I want to say that I have looked at that too, and there are some excellent initiatives or suggestions in this. Looking at what the Productivity Commission found, the 2020 Mental Health report highlights the importance of loneliness and social isolation for mental illness and suicide. Again, this is surrounding mental health issues, and it talks about the Morrison government’s appointment for suicide prevention and mental health of somebody who is dedicated to mental health and suicide prevention and other things. They did make some very interesting points around the national strategy around that. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to go through this.

My time has been running out very quickly, but I want to go to these statistics that have come out of the Victorian Agency for Health Information. They show that an average of 342 children aged up to 17 are presenting to emergency departments for mental health reasons each week and an average of 156 teenagers a week are presenting to hospital after self-harming and suffering suicidal ideation—an 88 per cent increase on last year. That is shocking. The number of teenagers rushed to hospital after self-harming and suffering suicidal thoughts spiked by 51 per cent, rising from a weekly average of 98 in 2020 to 148 this year.

These statistics do not even take into account the latest lockdown, lockdown 6, which has tipped more and more people over, and the extent of that despair and the loneliness has never been more profound. This government’s policy failures have led to that—their decisions to keep us locked down. So I find it quite ironic that Ms Patten is bringing this—with all good intention, but this is what she has done. You have supported the government without looking at these issues in this house, which we have been arguing for for 20 months. Bring it back into the house, understand what is going on. We do not need a minister for loneliness. We have got a mental health crisis in this state, and that needs to be addressed before we create another ministerial portfolio. We do not even have a dedicated Minister for Child Protection. Forty-five children lost their lives last year because of the failures of the system to check on children during lockdown. Forty-five children—where is the outcry from the community on that horrendous statistic? Nowhere.

So do not create another position where someone will sit there and take some responsibility or pass it to the next person, as we continually see with this government. We need to fix what we already know is broken. The government might argue, ‘Well, we’ve had a royal commission into the mental health issue’. Well, where are the outcomes? The outcomes of everything this government touches are just getting worse, including the presentations in our health system that I keep talking about. Elective surgery—do you understand how isolating that is for somebody who cannot get their knee done? They are looking after an elderly sibling. They have got to put them in a nursing home. Do you understand the impact of that loneliness that they feel? Well, it is a reality for tens of thousands of Victorians that cannot get their surgery. They feel trapped. They cannot get out, they cannot get their cataracts done, they cannot drive. They are trapped in their homes. We have got to fix those issues—the health crisis, the mental health crisis—before we start another jolly ministerial responsibility that sounds all well and good and fluffy but is not going deliver the outcomes we need. The outcomes we need are to fix the current crisis.

I am very pleased that the federal government is looking at this. They are looking at it with a national perspective and they are identifying that the lockdowns have had such a massive impact, because they have. So do not create another portfolio. Get what we need, as Dr Bach knows—child protection. I mentioned those 45 children that died last year. We do not even have a dedicated Minister for Child Protection, for heaven’s sake.

So loneliness, yes, there are aspects. I heard Ms Patten say that loneliness is a better predictor of premature death than physical inactivity, obesity or smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Diabetes, which I do have quite a bit of experience in, let me tell you, that is not pleasant to have when that runs out of control and you end up with multiple systems failure and, again, multiple health implications, and you are trapped in your home and feeling lonely. No wonder when you cannot get out, you cannot be that social being that you need to be. I say the impacts of these extended lockdowns will have long-lasting effects for many, many years for our children and for many other Victorians. So loneliness is a massive issue, I agree, but we do not need a dedicated minister for it.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:29): I rise to speak on Ms Patten’s motion on loneliness. I will be supporting this motion today. I think this motion is more important than ever. More than one-quarter of Australians have experienced loneliness for the first time during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been described as the next public health crisis facing Australia. Almost 40 per cent of 3047 Australians surveyed said they have never felt lonelier than through this lockdown.

The first step to addressing this issue is giving it the space it deserves. Unfortunately, loneliness has been one of those topics we do not like to speak about, because it has got a stigma. Forty-eight per cent said they were too embarrassed to admit to others that they were lonely, and 41 per cent worried others would judge them if they said they were lonely. We know this is far from the case. Most people I know make an effort to reach out to others and are more than happy to support others through tough times when they can. It is tough to open up about loneliness, but these are the conversations we need to have. We need to challenge the preconceptions about who may be lonely and encourage Victorians to find a sense of connection through our shared experience.

It is interesting to note that there is a perception among the majority of Australians that people aged 65 and above are the loneliest in the community. This is not the case. It has been found that gen Z and millennials are more likely to feel lonely than all other generations. I say this not to surprise you but so that we can address loneliness better as a community.

Another misconception is that loneliness affects only our mental health. This is also not the case. As this motion points out, social isolation and loneliness are serious public health risks. Of course this is a difficult thing to measure precisely. However, it has been found that social isolation significantly increases a person’s risk of premature death in all cases, a risk that rivals those of smoking, obesity and physical inactivity. Social isolation has been associated with about a 50 per cent increase in the risk of dementia, and poor social relationships have been associated with a 29 per cent increase in the risk of heart disease and a 32 per cent increase in the risk of a stroke.

It is clear we need addressing loneliness to be a priority. One way of doing this is to create a dedicated ministerial portfolio for loneliness, a proposal I would support. This portfolio would ensure that we would look at the policy from a social perspective as well and look further at how we can foster high-quality social relationships in the community. This is something we can all address today. If you know someone who for any reason may be experiencing social isolation, please reach out. Give them a call. I promise you it can make all the difference for someone going through a hard time. Let us eradicate this loneliness together.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:33): To begin with I would like to thank Ms Patten too for bringing this motion on this very important topic of loneliness into the house today. Loneliness is usually combined with and related to social isolation, but actually they are quite distinct. Social isolation is seen as the state of having minimal contact with other people. On the other hand, loneliness is an emotional reaction to social isolation. It is a state of mind; it is a mental and psychological state of mind. For example, even though a person has no-one around, they may not feel lonely, because there is no desire for social interaction, but on the other hand someone in a crowd in the middle of a party still can be feeling loneliness because of the lack of some desired connection that the person could not achieve. It is a subjective emotion, and the cause of that is various. It could be social, mental, emotional, environmental or even cultural factors.

To follow on from my colleague Ms Shing, in the kingdom of animals we humans are not a solitary animal. In fact we are very much in general a social animal. There are only a few animals in the animal kingdom that are actually solitary, like the bears, like the platypuses, like the leopards, like the koalas even and like the sloths—a very slow moving animal. But we are not, and every one of us from time to time may be affected by loneliness. That could be transient, but a more long-term and chronic loneliness can cause various types of maladaptive social conditions such as hypervigilance and social awkwardness. In fact loneliness can be spread through our connections in the social group as a disease, and it has very undesirable consequences. For example, people have found that chronic loneliness does have some effects on brain functioning and structure. Chronic loneliness can also be a serious life-threatening health condition. It tends to affect people and cause increased incidence of high blood pressure, high cholesterol and obesity. Also the mental state can be affected, resulting in anxiety, depression, digestive problems, heart disease and sleeping problems. In fact loneliness can increase mortality. It is found that people with good social relationships could have up to a 50 per cent greater chance of survival compared to lonely people. As has been pointed out by the speakers before me, loneliness is a risk and it could be a contributing cause of death comparable to or worse than smoking and definitely greater than obesity or a lack of exercise and activity. Particularly in children loneliness is directly linked to several forms of antisocial and self-destructive behaviour and affects very negatively the ability to learn and to memorise. It also then can create hostile and delinquent behaviour in children.

There are thousands and thousands of studies and surveys that have been undertaken to assess the prevalence of loneliness. It tends to be concentrated among vulnerable subgroups such as the socio-economically poor, the unemployed and migrants and also in groups such as people with disabilities, single parents, rural people and people who are not in their family nucleus.

Not only in the UK is there a ministry for loneliness. Not only in Japan is there a ministry for loneliness. In other countries there have been calls for their own ministry. For example, in Singapore and even in the Netherlands they are also considering a ministry for loneliness to tackle this very challenging problem. This is a state of mind.

The Andrews Labor government had a royal commission, the first ever in our country, into mental health initiatives. Recommendation 15 of the inquiry is that we ‘establish and recurrently resource “community collectives”’ and:

support each community collective to bring together a diversity of local leaders and community members to guide and lead efforts to promote social connection and inclusion in Victorian communities.

In the state budget of 2021–22 the government put a provision for $16 million over the next four years for a social prescribing trial, as recommended by the royal commission. Social prescribing trials will be undertaken first in six local adult and older adult mental health and wellbeing services, starting from July 2022. These will support consumers, particularly older people, to link to local social community activities such as walking groups, men’s sheds and neighbourhood houses and also to sport and art classes.

The community collectives this government will also establish in each and every one of the state’s 79 local government areas will bring the community together to guide and lead social connection and inclusion efforts. The collectives will take the lead in consulting with local communities to identify the challenges and also the opportunities to promote community participation and to take action to support the mental health and wellbeing of their communities. Each community collective will be supported by local government and will be made up of a broad and diverse range of community members and local leaders that are determined by the community. Loneliness is a very important challenge we have, particularly in this age and time and particularly in this global pandemic, all over the world. Thank you once again to Ms Patten for bringing this to our attention.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:42): Well, how unusual. I rise to make a contribution on Ms Patten’s motion, and in her motion she hits upon some very serious and important issues. I know Ms Patten is deeply serious in her advocacy regarding the important issue of loneliness, and in her motion I think it is useful for the house that she makes a number of points that state a series of facts about the impact of loneliness upon Victorians.

In it, as has been noted in the debate, she notes that loneliness is a better predictor of premature death than physical inactivity, obesity or smoking 15 cigarettes a day. I am not opposed to recent measures, some of which were introduced by a federal Labor government, in order to deter Victorians from smoking. Now, especially in my experience working in schools, young people recoil from cigarettes as if they were radioactive, but there is not the kind of understanding in the community that you would hope for around some of the issues that Ms Patten hits upon. I do not want to seek to verbal Ms Patten, but I dare say the point here is not to say that these other issues are unimportant—they are not—but rather to highlight the huge problems, mental health and physical health problems, as has been noted in this debate, by the many Victorians who experience loneliness.

She goes on to note something, again, that has been mentioned in this debate, which is that perhaps there is a misconception that in particular older folks experience loneliness. Well, that is not untrue, but something that we have learned in particular through the period of this pandemic, as Dr Kieu was discussing—in between koalas and platypuses and other things that I did not entirely follow, if I am being honest with you, Acting President—is that many young people here in Victoria experienced great loneliness over the period of this pandemic.

A number of my friends who are a little younger than me, especially friends who did not live with housemates or have partners, found things incredibly difficult during the periods in which we were not able to move beyond a 5-kilometre radius. Oftentimes folks who lived on their own—many younger people I am thinking about here who I am connected with—found it really difficult, because they could not even see family and friends.

At the outset of the pandemic my wife and I sought to stay connected via Zoom. Do you remember Houseparty? I remember trying to connect with people via Houseparty. That was a thing at the start of the pandemic. But very quickly we felt, and many of our friends felt, after a whole day of staring at our computers, to tell you the truth, that the last thing we wanted to do was to get online again. It was kind of fun and interesting and different right at the start of the pandemic and the period of our lockdowns here in Melbourne, but it got old really quickly. Certainly I could list any number of my personal friends who ultimately said, ‘Look, sorry, I’m just not interested in doing that because I am cooked at the end of a day staring at a screen’. So I am not going to make light of Ms Patten’s motion. Ms Crozier has already flagged that on this side of the house we will not be supporting it. I think Ms Patten hits upon some very serious issues. It is good to debate them, and again I would note her very real concern for Victorians who experience loneliness.

I would raise a couple of points that I do not think have been raised in the debate yet regarding machinery-of-government issues. It is often the case that advocates for a particular issue and a particular cause will call for the establishment of a particular ministry, yet certainly my experience when I worked in government many moons ago, for a regrettably short period of time, was that it could be either a blessing or a curse to have a separate ministry for a relatively narrow issue. It has been noted by Ms Crozier that at the moment you would hope that ministers like the Minister for Mental Health, perhaps the Minister for Child Protection and the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers would be really cognisant of issues regarding loneliness.

I think from time to time you can have a highly effective minister for a relatively small and narrow portfolio. Oftentimes, however, what you see—and this is no partisan comment—is that a relatively junior minister will be given a narrow and relatively small portfolio and then important stakeholders can come to think, ‘Well, maybe it would have been better to have had that portfolio rest with a minister who had more clout’. The fact of the matter is that given our Westminster structures, ministers sit atop large departments, and department secretaries and public servants, first and foremost, see their duty as to the lead minister in that department.

Whilst it remains the case that at the moment there are any number of relatively narrow portfolios that were portfolios under the previous Liberal and National Party government and are portfolios under the current Labor government, the Labor government has made some changes in ministerial responsibilities. I make no negative commentary about that. But my experience does make me reticent, notwithstanding the initial appeal of arguments such as those put forward for a separate ministry for loneliness, to jump to support them. I personally cannot see in a machinery-of-government sense how our structures would suit having a separate minister for loneliness.

I think my view is that what we can do through debates like this—important debates like this—on, I think, in many respects, very good motions like Ms Patten’s motion is to lift the profile of loneliness as an issue. We have heard from government members—and I take them at face value—that they understand the significant issues regarding loneliness in our community and understand that those issues have escalated over the period of the pandemic. In my mind, then, it would be better to broadly retain our current structures yet hope to ensure that a whole suite of important ministers would have responsibilities that overlap those that are outlined in this motion.

Ms Tierney is in the chamber. As Minister for Higher Education and Minister for Training and Skills, I am sure that she also turns her mind to these questions when it comes to the predominantly young people, but also oftentimes older folk, who engage across her portfolio, especially thinking of neighbourhood houses, for example, and Learn Locals. There are any number of initiatives in Minister Tierney’s portfolio that have bipartisan support that I think could be used as a tool to seek to help the many Victorians who are experiencing loneliness.

The final point I would make is that I think it is possible to succumb to a rather touching and naive faith in central government. The government has a role undoubtedly in seeking to support Victorians who experience loneliness. The community, in my view, has an even bigger role. I am not suggesting that that is the case with Ms Patten, but nonetheless, because of that position of mine, because of that view, I cannot see how in a machinery-of-government sense this would really work.

I do agree with Ms Crozier that there are other priorities. We still do not have a full-time and ongoing Minister for Child Protection. The Premier has said that at some point in the future he will embark upon a broader cabinet reshuffle and ultimately we will have an ongoing Minister for Child Protection. It would not be appropriate for me to reflect upon the capacity of Minister Wynne. I do not know him. By all reports he is an affable guy, and I am sure he is a competent Minister for Planning. But my view is it would be far better, given the critical importance of that portfolio, for the government first and foremost to focus there, to appoint a full-time ongoing Minister for Child Protection. And so for those reasons, notwithstanding the fact—and I am entirely genuine in saying this—that I think it is a good thing that Ms Patten has brought on this debate, and I note her advocacy once again, nonetheless I will not be supporting the motion.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:52): I thank Ms Patten for bringing this motion to debate in this chamber. These are important issues for our Parliament to be discussing, especially at this time. COVID has certainly thrown the fault lines of our societies wide open right across the world. While many Victorians were already experiencing loneliness, the pandemic certainly exacerbated it. Most people experienced loneliness, and those who were already experiencing loneliness became increasingly isolated. I think it is worth noting, too, that the terminology that we use to discuss this issue is important, as has been canvassed in this debate today, as it frames the way we understand and respond.

On that note, I think the more useful framework is to talk about loneliness through the frame of social isolation. I understand that they describe slightly distinctive things, but they are absolutely interwoven and interlinked, and I therefore think it is a more useful frame to understand the conditions that give rise to the experience of loneliness. I take Ms Patten’s earlier remark around and reflection on a person who might be experiencing loneliness despite being surrounded by people. I think using the frame of social isolation is still really important in that context, because if you really interrogate why that is occurring, it is often because there has been a difficulty connecting with those people that a person might be surrounded by—a feeling of not belonging, of not fitting in. And the ability to develop those connections is at the heart of a social isolation frame.

It is important to think about how we can better address social isolation, because as we have heard in this debate so far, it can have severe and lasting effects on people’s lives. There are of course the mental health and health impacts, but there are also the impacts that we are witnessing just this week as we discuss the public health response to the pandemic. We know that social isolation can drive distrust, suspicion, fear and division in our societies as people become more and more disconnected from each other. This is a vicious cycle that can drive even further isolation. When people are lonely, when they are isolated, they are at higher risk of being exploited by others. So it is indeed welcome that we are having this debate, especially this week.

But before we talk more about how we address the growing issues of social isolation, I think it is really important that we pause for a moment and try to understand the causes and contributors to social isolation, as I think this is just as important and would help inform the types of solutions that we need to consider. The loneliness this motion refers to is a symptom of the last few decades of neoliberalism, of a politics that has, in the words of political theorist Wendy Brown, economised human beings to become market actors and nothing but. Our value is measured by our productivity. We are boxed into being consumers, not citizens. The result of this politics that has dominated our government since the 1980s is that community has been displaced as a key way people relate to each other in our society. We are all getting more crunched by the system, having to study harder for longer, work harder for longer for less, more tired, more isolated, more worn out. Increasingly insecure work has left many people with no time for connection. Wage stagnation has exacerbated pressures in modern life, and this has of course been combined with an increasingly inadequate and ever-conditional income support system. What this means is that people have less time for connection and community.

What we need to do to address these symptoms is to address the root cause of the social dislocation at the heart of loneliness. It starts with economic security. A universal basic income, for example, could provide such economic security and relieve the pressure of either ever-increasing working hours or the need to scratch around for multiple casual, poorly paid jobs constantly. Good quality, well-paid secure jobs across the economy would reduce working hours and would also provide both the economic security and time from which community connection can be built.

Housing, as actual homes for people not just wealth accumulation, is another necessary foundation on which a more connected community can be built. Insecure housing leads to disconnection. Connected to housing is how our governments have given over the planning of our city and towns to property developers. Instead of planning that encourages community and connection we get the opposite: planning that entrenches alienation in the interests of property developers. In a recent story in the Guardian on the abject failures of Melbourne’s planning system the mayor of Wyndham reflects on how outer suburban development does not take into account the mental and physical health impacts of commuting 2 hours back and forth to work every day or the cost, they say, of having to own a car for every adult in the house because you have to drive to the shops or to exercise or to entertainment. Major sociological studies have found that our young people have been particularly pressured by the economic system that we ask them to serve.

Some of you may be interested in reading the Life Patterns longitudinal study conducted by the University of Melbourne that has been studying the lives of young people as they traverse different stages of life for many years. It is clear from these types of research studies that young people want a life enriched by family and community connections, but more often than not they are asked to prioritise work at the cost of most other things. They study for longer, navigate insecure work for longer, often juggle multiple jobs and further education as they try to keep up in the race for credentials and all the while life goes on. For some of them their hopes of meeting a partner and starting a family are delayed and disrupted because they have had to move back home, keep studying, working and saving for a house they increasingly cannot afford, and with each of these things they forego the opportunity to do some of the community connecting and relationship-building work that we know is at the heart of a healthy, connected and cohesive society. Where is the time to join a club, to do community sport, join up with civil society organisations, volunteer on the issues they care about? There just is not enough time for so many of our young people because we ask them to sign up to an economic system that does not value them as people. Rather our lives are valued more and more in economic terms only, as units of production only.

So while I thank Ms Patten for bringing this important issue up for debate, and I will be supporting this motion, I would urge us to think more broadly about the solution than what has been proposed today. Fundamentally governments have to commit to putting people and community first in everything they do. They have the job to create the conditions for connection and community. Alongside the usual top-down approach of government giving out grants to charities, the challenges of loneliness and social alienation require a fundamental rethinking of how we build our society and economy to value people and connection. The answers lie in improving wages, creating more secure jobs and good jobs, fixing the housing crisis, planning for communities rather than developer profits and massive investment in the mental health system.

If loneliness is the problem, then building community is the solution. I hope we can recommit through this debate today to helping Victoria emerge even more connected and more cohesive into the future.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:59): In rising to speak on Ms Patten’s loneliness motion there are certainly things I can agree with. Loneliness is a terrible affliction, and we have heard already some painful stories. There is no doubt about the social consequences and the effect they have on mental and physical health. I cannot disagree with the first three sections of Ms Patten’s motion, which detail these physical and mental consequences. Nor do I dispute the survey results, though it does sometimes occur to me that increasing awareness of an issue and increasing surveys into it can sometimes be mistaken for increasing prevalence.

Still, in a world with ever more remote working, online shopping, telephone banking, virtual medical appointments and Zoom town hall meetings—and even remote parliamentary sittings for some—there is no doubt that the physical connections many used to rely upon are increasingly disappearing. I can even begin to agree with Ms Patten’s eighth point—that addressing loneliness is integral to Victoria’s COVID-19 recovery. But I think there is an important nuance here. That statement is the wrong way around. In fact it is Victoria’s COVID-19 recovery that is integral to addressing loneliness, not vice versa. The clearest remedy for our loneliness epidemic is not to address it directly with surveys, programs, commissioners and ministerial portfolios. It is much simpler. Let us remove the artificial restrictions on social and economic interaction. Let us never again ban children from seeing grandparents and from having grandparents take them to the playground. Let us never again separate families from dying relatives and compound grief by policing funerals. Let us put an end to all that forever. Let us never again cancel weddings, anniversaries, birthdays and the gatherings that make and mark our lives.

Loneliness is just one of the many factors this government failed to assess when enforcing its public health driven lockdown mandates. It was not just family parties that were banned. It took until September last year for the health officials to concede to even single bubble arrangements. The coalition has called for a royal commission to be held into the handling of the pandemic in Victoria. There is no doubt that loneliness and the failure to consider the impact of lockdowns, curfews, business shutdowns and job losses on mental health should be high on the agenda. I really look forward to Ms Patten’s support for this important investigation. I hope she will be right there with us.

My disagreement with this motion, however, and the reason I will not vote to support it is about the remedy suggested, not the issue itself. I simply do not believe that top-down government strategies are the way to get anything done. What would a new ministerial portfolio achieve? Would it simply be another line on the email signature? I doubt it. More likely we would end up with a new department, probably yet another commissioner and the empire and the cost which go with these titles. What is next—a Minister for Happiness? After all, we have already got one for fairness; we might as well have one for happiness and one for loneliness as well. My God, the empires are getting bigger by the minute. Significant resources would likely be dedicated to and wasted on public sector led strategies and initiatives—the kinds of awards which require employing one set of bureaucrats to design the grand schemes, another to make the awards, still more to administer their payments and check compliance and then finally the consultants to evaluate the program’s success and report back.

In my view this is not the way forward. Society is an organic construct, and we cannot re-create it by government fiat. Put fundamentally, nothing in my experience of politics in this country has ever convinced me that government can solve social problems like this. I cannot believe this would be any different. Instead, we need to ditch restrictions for good and work with volunteers, charity groups and local associations to combat loneliness. We already know about the work done by community associations—Rotary, Lions, Probus et cetera—and sporting clubs, men’s sheds and the University of the Third Age. Even single-sex clubs help with loneliness. All these people have been stopped from operating because of this government’s lockdown, and Ms Patten, you voted for them. You voted to lock down these people so that they were even more lonely, so it is hypocritical to come here to say to solve the problem of loneliness we need yet another department, another bureaucracy and yet more public servants who will just waste more taxpayers dollars. And nobody will be better off; they will not be less lonely, they will just be poorer. So I am very happy to oppose this motion.

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (17:05): I too rise to speak on the loneliness motion, motion 654. I thank Ms Patten for bringing this motion to the house. Human beings are social animals. We seek social interactions; it is part of our evolutionary behaviour. So it makes sense that when people are alone they will face difficulty.

Often loneliness is used as a catch-all term. Loneliness is a feeling of distress people feel when they have not had any meaningful social interactions. Research has shown that there are cyclical links between social isolation, loneliness and poorer physical and mental health. In 2018 researchers from Swinburne University and the Australian Psychological Society conducted a national survey of 1678 adults. VicHealth also conducted a loneliness survey of young Australians in 2019. Many people who were lonely before the pandemic would have felt increased impacts during the COVID-19 restrictions.

The Andrews Labor government has taken a strong stance when it comes to mental health. We have made the single largest investment into mental health in Australian history. We have committed $3.8 billion to build a new mental health system from its foundations. We have been committed to implementing all recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. In the final report of the royal commission the broad issue of loneliness and social isolation is covered. The royal commission’s recommendation 15 touches on the impact of loneliness on mental health and wellbeing. It also recommends several interventions to strengthen local communities. We have accepted all recommendations of the royal commission, and we are working towards implementing all of them.

The 2021–22 Victorian budget funded $16 million over four years for social prescribing trials. This funding will support this innovative new model. Through social prescriptions patients are provided with non-medical support to help to boost their overall wellbeing. Prescriptions can include developing hobbies, exercise or even adoption of a pet. As recommended by the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, social prescribing trials will be undertaken in the first six local adult and older adult mental health and wellbeing services sites from July 2022. Research has shown that loneliness is more common in young people of ages 15 to 25 and older people who are 75 and above. This initiative will support consumers, particularly older people. These trials will link to local community and social activities, including exercise groups, men’s sheds, neighbourhood houses, sports, arts, volunteering and intergenerational programs. By getting people connected to the community they should feel less lonely. Community is not just based on geographic space; it is also anyone who shares common interests. During the pandemic the internet has enabled a lot of such support groups through shared interests, and now that we are opening up people can form groups outside as well. Developing meaningful connections is the key to combating loneliness. Through these trials we will be able to see concrete results.

Community collectives will also be established in each of the state’s 79 local government areas to bring the community together and to guide and lead local social connection and inclusion efforts. The collectives will take the lead in consulting with local communities to identify challenges and opportunities to promote community participation and take action to support the mental health and wellbeing of their communities. They will identify community groups at greater risk of experiencing social isolation and social exclusion and work to inform the wellbeing priorities of each local council’s municipal health and wellbeing plan. Each community collective will be supported by local government and made up of a broad and diverse range of community members and local leaders determined by the community.

Research into social relationships and isolation has shown that positive relationships support good mental and physical health. There are activities that a person can do to lower their levels of loneliness, such as access to paid work, caring, volunteering and active memberships in sporting and community organisations. However, the effectiveness of these interventions is mixed and not consistent across all cohorts. The Andrews Labor government has supported men’s wellbeing and community connections through providing funding for establishing, expanding or improving men’s sheds. Men’s sheds are safe and productive places where men can get together and build projects and friendships. They also contribute to the community through their projects. Men’s sheds can have extraordinary benefits in forming meaningful connections while upskilling. They promote social interactions and inclusion. The Andrews Labor government provides $1 million to support men’s sheds each year.

As I mentioned before, older people are at a higher risk of feeling loneliness. Seniors of multicultural backgrounds may also feel the impact of loneliness due to cultural differences. Therefore the Victorian government is supporting seniors from multicultural backgrounds. The Andrews Labor government has provided a share in $7.4 million dollars to more than 900 multicultural seniors organisations over the next four years. This support of up to $2000 per year will help the delivery of in-person and digital activities by community groups. I have met several seniors groups in the Western Metropolitan Region, and I know how important social interactions and relationships are for that particular cohort. All these initiatives and supports help in removing loneliness and isolation for Victorians, and of course a lot more still can be done in tackling loneliness. I thank again Ms Patten for this important motion.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (17:12): I really appreciate all the contributions that we have had today, in recognising that loneliness is an epidemic in our community and it will take a whole range of actions to resolve it. This will be about building better communities. It will be looking at the way we work, looking at the way our health system works. It will be part of our planning. It will be part of addressing congestion. It will be part of a whole range of areas, which is why having a central place that can look at this with a lens over everything, a portfolio, is important.

I note that Ms Crozier was relatively dismissive of this, but I would also just like to note that the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System did not once mention loneliness. While the case studies talked about loneliness, it was not mentioned. It is a precursor. It is something that we want to prevent in addressing mental health because it is a cause. We know that the London School of Economics said that for every dollar we spend addressing loneliness we save three—and in fact that was in pounds. I appreciate everyone who spoke today. I particularly was happy to hear about the wonderful ‘Sehnsucht’; it is a brilliant word. I commend the motion to the house.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 24
Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Stitt, Ms
Bourman, Mr Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms
Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr
Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms
Gepp, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms
Grimley, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms
Hayes, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms
Kieu, Dr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms
Noes, 13
Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr McArthur, Mrs
Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr
Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr
Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr
Cumming, Dr

Motion agreed to.

Announcements

COVID-19 vaccination

The Acting Clerk: On behalf of the Clerk, pursuant to paragraph (6) of an order of the Council on 14 October 2021 and further to the Clerk’s email to members today, I report to the house that Mr Somyurek has now complied with paragraph (3) of the order and his suspension has been lifted.

Statements on reports, papers and petitions

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Report 2020–21

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:21): I rise to speak on the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission’s annual report 2020–21. During the year they finalised eight preliminary inquiries and six complex investigations. They had 17 open investigations and preliminary inquiries at the end of this year. That is a disturbing number when you consider that they are responsible for preventing and exposing public sector corruption and police misconduct. They cover state and local governments, police, Parliament and the judiciary.

Not surprisingly, interest in IBAC increased, with a 75 per cent increase in visits to their website. And it might be interesting, what was it, the Watts report? They released a report in June on the perceptions of corruption and integrity in the Victorian public sector. This was based on three surveys conducted between 2013 and 2019. The results are disturbing. Amongst state government employees, concerns associated with political interference emerged as a newly identified area of risk. They frequently expressed concerns regarding politicians and ministers due to the elected nature of their roles and their level of seniority and personal interest in the community. The report says, and I quote:

There are considerable differences between the responsibilities and functions of politicians and public sector employees. Politicians are elected to represent their constituents and, when appointed ministerial responsibilities, they are required to make decisions that can impact the broader Victorian community.

I will quote again:

Public sector employees are charged with implementing the decisions made, including the development and delivery of services and infrastructure.

And I will quote again:

Respondents perceive that the interests of politicians and ministers (and to a lesser extent lobbyists and interest groups, such as industry and union representatives) may improperly influence government decisions.

One employee said:

The influence on politicians from external forces (money, industry, lobby groups) pushes an agenda that is not in the interest of Victorians at large. This transforms into influence from politicians.

Now, another said, and I quote:

Organisations like unions calling [t]he shots to management about what they want Inspectors to do/not do.

Another said, and I quote:

Often individuals and groups lobby the Minister to influence outcomes or the Department’s work program. There is sometimes a fine line between the Minister acting on the interests of a group/individual in society and instructing the Department to undertake an activity that would impact the integrity of the Department.

Now, this probably is not surprising, as in 2019 we had the findings about the red shirts affair and the announcement by police that they had dropped their long-running investigation. Only last week there were reports that detectives were directed by high-ranking officers to make sure that the 16 named members of Parliament, and I will quote:

… not be arrested, photographed, searched if they are interviewed.

But they were not interviewed—they refused to be. And that brings us to IBAC’s latest investigation, Operation Watts, a coordinated investigation with the Victorian Ombudsman, which is looking into a range of matters, including allegations of branch stacking. They are currently conducting public hearings into allegations of serious corrupt conduct, including by Victorian public officers and including by members of Parliament. Now, if any of you have not been watching, I suggest you do so. It is better than watching a crime show, and I am actually hoping that someone could put it on a DVD for me for Christmas, because I have been far too busy to watch it all. I am pretty sure that I could probably get a burnt copy of it in Footscray, but I would not mind a proper DVD set. (Time expired)

Wild horse control

Petition

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:27): In rising to speak on petition 325 on wild horse control, which I tabled this morning, I want to first pay tribute to the extraordinary individuals and groups who are fighting so hard for this cause. In particular I thank Marilyn Nuske and Renee Neubauer, who originated and promoted this petition. I also want to highlight the extraordinary number of groups working in the same cause. I thank the Brumby Action Group, the Australian Brumby Alliance, the Barmah Brumby Preservation Group, the Barmah Brumby Hay Angels, Heritage Brumby Advocates Australia and the many groups involved in rehoming these animals.

There is a reason why so many groups are involved and why these petitions number in the thousands—180 000 on the most recent change.org one. I get thousands of emails, page views, likes and shares whenever I raise the threat to Victorian brumbies. People care. They see the inadequacy of the environmental arguments for eliminating brumby populations, the uncontrolled damage done by far more numerous deer, pigs, dogs, cats, foxes and so on, plus the environmental weeds that are ravaging many public spaces. They oppose the deeply damaging purist ideology, the idea that there should be no human interaction with nature at all and that some mythical prehuman pristine perfection can be created. They reject the complete antipathy towards cultural and historical sentiment, brumbies’ pioneering role in 19th-century settlement, their centrality to the atmosphere and spirit of the landscape today and the wartime service and sacrifice of millions of these animals’ predecessors. And finally, on the subject of this petition, they have no faith whatsoever in the ability of Parks Victoria or indeed anyone to implement the proposed reductions without massive animal cruelty.

To be honest, the title of this petition has been sanitised. It is not wild horse control, it is about shooting brumbies. I am deeply sceptical about how many horses will be trapped and rehomed. We have heard multiple reports to date of established rehomers being rejected by officials, who will now turn to shooting as the only solution—unsurprisingly, a cheaper solution. I am deeply concerned by this. Foaling season began a month or two ago and will continue well into next year. Both Barmah National Park and the Alpine National Park, Victoria, will now have newly born brumby foals. Yet despite this, brumby groups can now show that Parks Victoria intend to proceed with trapping brumbies in Barmah.

What has happened to best management and best model codes of practice? Where are the standard operating procedures and model codes of practice? As the petition says, Parks Victoria are seeking to remove 560 brumbies from Bogong and the eastern Alps this year. They are, to quote:

… proposing ground shooting which will cause horses to scatter and mis-shooting will lead to protracted deaths of injured horses. Aerial shooting is also grossly cruel, as shooting from moving helicopters leads to inaccuracies and horses being shot multiple times with prolonged, cruel and painful deaths.

Anyone who understands the terrain in these areas knows this is simply inevitable. For it to happen in foaling season is unconscionable.

I join the petitioners and the hundreds of thousands of brumby advocates in Victoria, Australia and across the world who demand the trapping and shooting be cancelled. The environmental reasons are weak, the alternatives unconsidered and the counterarguments ignored. This is a pointless exercise, with ideology and stubbornness the only conceivable explanation. Most of all, however, the proposal itself is deeply and irreparably cruel. I have been pleased to present the petition, and I look forward to continuing the fight by all other means available.

Seymour ambulance services

Petition

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:31): I rise to speak to my ambulance petition initiated by Mr Tony Hubbard from Seymour in my electorate. Gayl Hubbard died in Seymour on 7 October 2019 while waiting for an ambulance. During that agonising 43-minute wait the worker from the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority, known as ESTA, told him, ‘The ambulance is on its way’, which gave him a sense that help was imminent.

I have since spoken to both Ambulance Victoria and the minister to request changes to that specific script. The Seymour ambulance station and hospital can be seen from the back verandah of Mr Hubbard’s home, which had given him some comfort that help was certainly close by. We know that tragedies happen every day in this world, but Tony has been left traumatised by what might have been. If he had known the ambulance was delayed, would he have taken Gayl to the hospital when she regained consciousness instead of waiting? Would it have made a difference? He will never know.

What we do know is that if you need an ambulance in a regional area, it is likely to take longer. We appreciate the paramedics that live and work in our regional areas and the exceptional care that they give to patients each and every day. That is not questioned. But we know that their resources are stretched. It is not just about topography, and we will argue that topography should be factored into planning regional services. If you have an ambulance station in a regional town, it does not necessarily mean that there will be an ambulance available when you call, which is very different to our fire services. We know that if an ambulance has to take a patient to Melbourne, they may be ramped at a hospital for hours. This takes resources out of our regions. The paramedics are working more overtime, which has resource implications and puts more strains in our system. Ramping is also increasing at our regional hospitals along with the metropolitan hospitals. There are more resources being allocated to the issue, but it is simply not enough. It worries me deeply that our health system was under strain even before the pandemic, with a 30 per cent increase in ambulance call-outs in the last year. It is no wonder that recently people were left waiting 10 minutes for their 000 call to be answered. A three-year-old girl in Bendigo died of a heart attack during that wait. It is heartbreaking not only for that family but for the paramedics on duty that night that simply could not get there in time.

Tony Hubbard has been dedicated to this cause since losing his wife. He has been active in the media and initiated this petition and shared it with his community to obtain their support. Tony stood for days at the Seymour expo in 2020 gathering signatures, distributed his petition to local shops and knocked on doors to talk to people about this issue. People did not hesitate, because they want better. They deserve better.

I recognise the empathy and time that Ambulance Victoria has given to Mr Hubbard to talk with him about his personal experience and the system more broadly. I am in regular contact with Ambulance Victoria regarding response issues across my electorate, and I will continue to work with them on how to make these improvements. Tony Hubbard’s petition calls for the return of on-call ambulance services in addition to current resourcing. Over 1000 people agree with him, and I have no doubt that if COVID-19 had not seen us locked down for the last nine months or more there would have been even more signatures to this call.

It is not just one solution to improving response times in regional Victoria, so we will keep working on all of the ideas and solutions that need to be implemented to support our residents and improve our services. We know that as a community we can come up with solutions. We can make these changes that are much needed, but it takes a village to raise a child, as they say, and we are calling on the village to ensure that we can assist paramedics wherever possible.

Wild horse control

Petition

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:36): I rise to speak on a petition that I tabled on 28 October on the Barmah brumbies. I join Mrs McArthur in this fight against this government that would eradicate all brumbies from our national parks. The petition I tabled called for all planned action to remove the brumbies from the Barmah National Park to cease and also for the minister to release the last five annual floodplain marshes condition reports and the brumby population aerial count photos.

The petition that I tabled on 28 October had 2463 signatures on it, but prior to that, on 4 August, I had tabled a petition with 14 671 signatures. Mrs McArthur tabled a petition today with 1154 signatures, and in May this year Mrs Neubauer and Mrs Nuske came to the steps of Parliament to pass over a change.org petition that had 176 800 signatures on it. Mr Bourman mentioned a change.org petition that had been passed to him in August 2019 with 28 000 signatures on it. Together this is about a quarter of a million people who have petitioned this government to stop the eradication of brumbies in our national parks.

Particularly I would like to talk about the Barmah and the inhumane practices that are going on there. Before they take any more brumbies out of the park they really need to do a headcount. Their numbers are quite wrong, and what we are seeing right now—right as we are speaking—is that they have traps set up in the Barmah where they are trapping the Barmah brumbies at the moment. There are mares with foals at foot and these foals are being enticed into trapyards with food. We have seen them in the trapyard. Together with them in that small space in the trapyard are also stallions and colts. There is a real risk that the foals are not only being crushed in the gates but also that they are being damaged by being in such small confines with the large stallions in there with them. Parks Victoria say, ‘Oh, but we have vets looking after them’. Well, the Parks Victoria staff are more than half an hour away from the trapyards in Barmah, so by the time they even know that a horse has been injured it is quite some time, and then they need to get a vet out there as well.

Trapping is contrary to the standard operating procedures and the model codes of practice of Parks Victoria, which say that you should not trap during foaling season. We do know that in the wild foaling season does kind of go all year, but there are particularly more foals that are born in the spring, so to be trapping right now is well against their own practices, and as I have said, the risk of foals being crushed in these traps is shocking. So we again ask that the minister instruct Parks Victoria to abandon all plans to trap and cull any brumbies in the Victorian national parks, particularly during foaling season, on the grounds that such a plan is contrary to the PestSmart standard operating procedures and model codes of practice.

I would also like to join Mrs McArthur in thanking the many brumby groups who raised these issues on behalf of these animals. It is cruel what this government is doing to horses, and Victorians will not put up with it. We have seen protest after protest—hundreds of thousands of people signing petitions and hundreds of thousands of people commenting on our social media posts on brumbies. It is just not what Australians want to do. These brumbies are part of our culture and our heritage, but they are also animals that deserve to be treated with respect and humanely.

I call on Mr Meddick to join us in our fight to stop this government eradicating the brumbies in the Barmah National Park and in the High Country, particularly the aerial shooting. That is just inhumane, but the trapping is also inhumane, and these magnificent animals deserve far more respect than they are being given by the Andrews Labor government. They did not get much respect from the Brumby Labor government either.

Auditor-General

Administration of Victorian Law Courts

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (17:41): I rise today to make some comments on the report from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office on the administration of Victorian courts. Court Services Victoria, or CSV, have an important role to provide support for the court system in Victoria to enable the courts to do things that are most important for the community—that is, to uphold justice, order and human rights. If CSV is unable to do its job properly, we risk the delivery of justice in Victoria. I note that CSV is a relatively new entity, having been hived off from the Department of Justice in 2014. I also recognise the unusual hybrid management structure, with multiple CEOs reporting both to the heads of the courts as well as to the CSV CEO.

The picture the Auditor-General report paints of the Victorian court system is very concerning. The report highlights an inadequate, ageing and inefficient network of court facilities around the state and a very large and growing case backlog. More troublingly, while the government has made additional funding available to address these issues, the bulk of the report is concerned with describing the recent history of inadequate governance of CSV, an organisation which so far has been unable to address inefficiencies and duplication of services. I have said before that the state of some court facilities in regional Victoria is disgraceful. It appears that CSV is well aware of this issue. In its own strategic asset plan, CSV reports only 16 per cent of the 75 buildings in its portfolio as meeting the CSV building condition assessment benchmark.

The audit report also talks about 179 additional courtrooms being required over the next 15 years and the likely divestment of smaller court facilities in regional Victoria. The latter comes with some risk that for regional Victorians judicial services will be harder to obtain, and I do not agree that regional Victorians should have their physical access to justice made any less due to the lack of investment by the state government.

Early in 2021 data given by the Attorney-General put the court backlog in the realm of 200 000 cases and growing. The government made $210 million available in the most recent budget to address the backlog, and I applaud this move. The question in my mind, though, is: is CSV capable of delivering? The Auditor-General’s report describes poor governance of CSV by the Courts Council. At the time of the establishment of CSV in 2014, the Courts Council, effectively the board of the CSV, could not even agree on what CSV’s role should be. This led to delays in the creation and implementation of fundamental strategic and corporate plans. It was not until 2020 that a strategic plan was agreed to and implemented. As a result of this failure, CSV has had six years of missed opportunities when it could have worked to improve its delivery model, remove inefficiencies in the Victorian court system and be as ready as it could be to meet the challenges now before it.

I am encouraged by the adoption of the CSV strategic plan in 2020 and the activity that this has generated. Whilst some more performance measurement needs to be done, CSV now has a defined road forward to improve its service delivery model. I remain concerned that these changes may be too little too late. I am concerned the court system will not be able to catch up with the growing backlog of cases and that the divestment of courts outside Melbourne means Victorians in regional areas face further barriers to prompt access to judicial services. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.

Heatherton train stabling

Petition

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (17:45): I am standing up today to support the residents of Kingston and their e-petition 291 to cease works for the proposed train stabling yard for the Suburban Rail Loop in Heatherton. What is left of Melbourne’s green wedges continues to remain a target for the government’s Big Build. From the outset I cannot believe and I find it really hard to credit that the government would even consider destroying this invaluable green open space. This project follows the trail of broken promises from this government, with Minister Wynne abandoning his election promise to protect green wedges from inappropriate development, like this one we are currently witnessing. If the Andrews government claims that they are so concerned with protecting our green wedges, then why are they so intent on destroying an area that is clearly parkland and green wedge?

The land in Heatherton has been marked as open space by Parks Victoria for many years and operates as a privately owned dog park for over 600 residents and their pets. Transitioning from a beautiful parkland to a noisy, dusty and polluted train stabling yard is not something the community ever wanted or expected. In fact it is the opposite of what they were promised. Needless to say, the project has left residents feeling devastated and completely blindsided by the government. This proposal has been completely rejected by Kingston council. Why does the government continue to undermine the council and the residents when they clearly understand and know what is best for their community?

The Suburban Rail Loop Authority is planning to use the site to house stabling and maintenance facilities for all trains along the Suburban Rail Loop east as well as hosting an operational control centre that will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While public transport infrastructure is important to ensure a sustainable future for Victoria, the current train stabling yard is unsuitable and will impact the amenity and biodiversity of the broader south-east green wedge. An alternative site should be found. It can be found and it should be found. An environment effects statement, which has already been released, further reveals the extensive and irreversible damage this project will have on our environment. To name a few, approximately 250 trees are predicted to be removed, resulting in a loss of open habitat and the displacement of our native animals. The EES has also identified several risks to human health from contaminated soil at the site. The list goes on.

The government has failed not only the community but also the environment. When will the government start to protect our green wedges? When will they learn the value and uniqueness of our native species, the value of open space and trees? My guess is when it is too late. I completely support and share the concerns of the residents and council on this particular issue and would like to strongly urge the government to look for alternative sites for this project.

Auditor-General

Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:48): I rise to speak very briefly to the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report into the Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19. I spoke about this in the last sitting week, and there are many issues in this report that I think should be of concern to Victorians, because there are issues around the management of the risks and identifying fraud and the potential for fraudulent and corrupt behaviour that has occurred. But I also want to go to some of the issues around procurement. In the report at page 24 it highlights the issue:

In addition, DJPR used its CIP process to procure a consulting firm to provide executive coaching and wellbeing support to staff affected by the COVID-19 response, at a total cost of up to $100 000.

Now, I am not quite sure what the coaching and wellbeing support to staff affected by the COVID-19 response entails. I would have thought that support and initiatives should be going to the Victorian public, who have been just so affected by the extensive lockdowns—the longest locked down city in the world, the harshest of restrictions and the worst outcomes—that Victoria has seen. The report goes on to say:

DJPR did not approach any other providers for quotes and did not finalise a contract with the firm until several months after it started providing services.

So again we have seen a constant theme and the excuse, ‘Well, it’s an unprecedented pandemic’. We all know that, but surely you should be managing the response responsibly and have systems in place. That was not undertaken in so many elements. This report goes on to say that:

Although using only one quote is acceptable under the VGPB policy, gaps in DHHS and DJPR’s procurement records mean it is not always clear how they considered value for money or chose a particular supplier.

That I think is of concern, because we have seen the hotel quarantine, the security guards, the private firms that were appointed in that decision, the medi-hotels, the Pinskier brothers that were put in place and that ran that program blow out from something like $4 million to over $80 million. I mean, this is taxpayers money we are talking about. Money does not grow on trees. This government does not seem to understand that. Somebody has got to pay for this enormous expenditure, and you have to have proper processes in place to justify those expenses.

‘Executive coaching and wellbeing support to staff affected by the COVID-19 response’ I think needs more clarification. I have got no idea what that means. Again I say that I think it is Victorians that deserve an understanding of the response, and that is what we keep saying. This side of the house keeps asking the government to release the health advice so that we can understand the COVID-19 response or Victorians can understand the COVID response undertaken by this government.

Business of the house

Standing and sessional orders

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:52): I move:

That the following temporary order come into effect on Friday, 19 November 2021, and remain in place until Friday, 31 December 2021, unless the house resolves otherwise:

1. Order of Business

The Order of Business on Wednesday will be—

Messages

Formal Business

Members’ Statements (up to 15 Members)

General Business

At 12.00 noon Questions

Constituency Questions (up to 15 Members)

General Business (continues)

At 6.45 p.m. Statements on reports, papers and petitions (30 minutes)

At 7.15 p.m. Adjournment (up to 20 Members)

Upon any interruption of business under this temporary order, Standing Order 4.08 relating to the extension of sitting will apply, and unless otherwise ordered by the Council, the Order of Business on Friday will be—

Messages

Formal Business

Government Business

At 12.00 noon Questions

Constituency Questions (up to 15 Members)

Government Business (continues)

At 4.00 p.m. Adjournment (maximum 30 minutes)

My proposal for just some minor alterations to the parliamentary sitting week was well circulated last week—I think on Thursday—from the whip to non-government members as a proposal to shift around the general business with government business with the offer of an additional slot on a Wednesday in exchange for the flow of government business on Friday. So it is relatively non-controversial and reasonably even, particularly with an agreement to facilitate the retirement speech of a member of the opposition this week as well. I would have liked this to have been done by leave yesterday, but I do understand that some members wanted some further time to consider the ramifications.

For context, the Fridays have been suggested as necessary for the remainder of the sitting year because of the amount of bills—important bills, important legislation—that the government would like to address this year. If you look at the government business bills on the notice paper at the moment, we have obviously got the pandemic bill; windfall gains; mental health; the children, youth and families amendment bill; the special investigator bill; and sex work decriminalisation; and the equal opportunity bill and the disclosure bill are coming over from the Assembly today.

A member: What about the racing bill?

Ms SYMES: There are other bills. I will put you on notice, Mr Ondarchie, that with the racing bill, the health legislation amendment information-sharing bill, the budget papers and the statute law revision bill it is not my intention to deal with those this year.

Mr Ondarchie: Really, the statute law revision bill? It’s only fresh.

Ms SYMES: I cannot even guarantee you that we will get to that one this term, but it is always nice to have it there as an option. I do not intend to speak for very long, because obviously when this is over the house adjourns, so I would just ask for members to support this government business motion.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:54): On this occasion we will support this motion. We clearly have political differences on certain key bills, and that is I think understood by all across the chamber. But beyond that we have tried to reasonably facilitate and put in place mechanisms that enable the chamber to function effectively. I should say that in this circumstance we will support it. I am conscious of the need to make sure that the non-government parties get a fair arrangement, and I am very willing to work with the other non-government parties as the opposition to get good outcomes and fair outcomes. In the circumstance I should also say that we will work to make sure that where bills are not controversial we will allow those to proceed smoothly. In terms of the swan song of Mr O’Donohue, I will put it on the record that the opposition is thankful for the government facilitating that tomorrow, and I should say that I think he is admired across the chamber and we look forward to his contribution.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:56): I rise to support this motion by the government. I would also like to have some consistency with start times. It has changed, but I would hope that we are starting to work towards this chamber operating normally, that we would have our start times with some consistency. Because it would seem that we are at 11.30, the next minute we are at 10 o’clock, the next minute it is 9.30 and the next minute it is 9 o’clock. It would be great to have some consistency on start times so that people can actually plan meetings beforehand—we can work with the clerks—as well as facilitate meetings before we are sitting here with the government rather than having meetings when we are sitting.

Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (17:57): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Point Cook Village

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (17:57): (1641) I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, and it follows a visit that I paid to the Point Cook Village. It is a retirement village, surprisingly enough in Point Cook. I met with a number of residents of that village recently, and they expressed to me some very grave concerns that they have about a number of disputes that they have with the committee of management and the management itself of the retirement village. One that jumps up at me quite extraordinarily is the decision by the management to sack the nurse who comes to visit, who came to visit once a week or twice a week. The decision was made to sack the nurse—during a pandemic, in a retirement village. Now, I do not know what they were thinking, but it seems to me that that is just insanity. That is just absolute insanity.

There are a whole range of issues that they are in conflict over, and they involve the maintenance of units. They involve the sale of units. It seems to me that there are a whole raft of issues that need to be addressed. Now, I have always been of the view that people in their retirement years should be relaxed. They should be enjoying life. You know, they should be enjoying the fruits of their labour over many years. They should not be forced to go through this form of conflict with management of the retirement village.

So I am absolutely gobsmacked at what has occurred here. What I am asking the minister to do is to intervene and to bring the parties together in a way where they can reconcile their differences so both parties can be happy with the results. We have over 400 residents in the village. It is a great village, I have got to say. It is in Point Cook, strangely enough. I might have mentioned that a couple of times, as a matter of fact. It is quite an impressive place, but there is just this culture of conflict—and it is not good. So I am hopeful that the minister might be able to put on perhaps her industrial hat, go to the Point Cook Village and bring the community, the residents and the management together so that we can have a degree of harmony that is necessary for people in their latter years to have a sense of relaxation and a sense of comfort that they are due after a lifetime of work.

School road safety

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:00): (1642) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and the action that I seek is for the minister to meet with the member for Footscray and me to discuss the matter of speed limits around local schools as a matter of urgency. Over two years ago I raised this issue. A Braybrook College year 7 student was lucky to escape serious injury after he was clipped by a passing car while riding his bike to school. The incident occurred on Ballarat Road near Burke Street, which is not subject to a school zone speed limit within the times in the morning and the afternoon. At that time the concerned school principal said near misses happen far too often and that to avoid fatality or serious injury the speed limit along Ballarat Road must be reduced during school zone times.

Now, as the minister knows, this stretch of road, which carries heavy trucks and heavy traffic on multiple lanes, allows motorists to zoom along travelling at speeds of sometimes 60, 70 and 80 kilometres per hour—by VicRoads’s own knowledge. The minister responded that they would ask VicRoads to work with the local community and ask that they go through the process they usually do to engage and consult with the local community.

This is not the only school in my area, the Western Metropolitan area, that does not have school zone speed limits. St Monica’s Catholic Primary School in Footscray is on Hopkins Street, and it has heavy traffic exiting and passing by to the city at 60 kilometres an hour. Some years ago a young girl was killed there. There is no school zone speed limit along Hopkins Street next to the school, so traffic just speeds past. Yet on my way to Parliament I drive along Footscray Road and in the Docklands. Now, the Docklands is eight lanes with a speed limit of 70 kilometres that goes to 60, and, guess what, eight lanes in the Docklands—there is a school zone speed limit in the Docklands, rightly so. There is a primary school newly there, or a secondary school, and I have to on those eight lanes drive at 40 kilometres an hour in the morning. Why don’t my residents in the Western Metropolitan Region on Ballarat Road and on Hopkins Street at St Monica’s Primary School, as well as at the special school in Braybrook, get the same attention?

Small business support

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (18:04): (1643) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business and Minister for Resources, the Honourable Jaala Pulford. This adjournment matter relates to the portfolio responsibilities of small business. The Andrews Labor government is supporting more local business chambers and trader groups. Round 2 of the business chambers and trader groups program is now open. Grants of $20 000 are available for up to 30 groups across Victoria. Business groups can use the funds to support their local business communities to recover from the pandemic. With this funding they can also create locally led initiatives that can help build skills and resilience. Round 2 of this program aims to support initiatives between 1 January and 30 April 2022 that enable local business collaboration; educate, inform and empower small businesses; support small businesses to build digital capability; and help members transition into recovery and restart. Business chambers and trader groups can run face-to-face or virtual activities to engage local businesses. Applications for this program close on 26 November. The action I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update on how business chambers and trader groups of the Western Metropolitan Region can get access to this important support.

Kialla West Primary School pedestrian crossing

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:05): (1644) My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and relates to the ongoing safety concerns at Kialla West Primary School. The action I seek from the minister is to personally intervene to expedite the completion of detailed plans by Regional Roads Victoria for a pedestrian underpass under the Goulburn Valley Highway at Kialla West Primary School so that these plans can be considered by Heritage Victoria and construction of the underpass can commence as soon as possible.

On 10 September 2018 a mother and her three daughters were struck by a truck while sitting in their vehicle waiting at the pedestrian crossing during pick-up time at Kialla West Primary School. All four were injured in the crash, in particular the youngest child, who is still suffering the effects of the collision today, more than three years later. The collision was so horrific it has had a lasting impact on the family and the entire school community, and this contribution represents my 11th in calling for safety upgrades at the crossing since the accident. Despite my constant calls and the continued advocacy of both Kialla West Primary School and the Greater Shepparton City Council, frustration has grown at the lack of progress on making their preferred option, a pedestrian underpass, a reality.

Kialla West Primary School’s location on the Goulburn Valley Highway, one of Victoria’s busiest thoroughfares, presents the school with great challenges regarding the safety of students, staff and the wider school community. Despite this the state government, through Regional Roads Victoria, did not tender for a consultant on the project until November 2020, more than two years after the collision. It took until nearly the end of July 2021 for Regional Roads Victoria to notify the school of further delays in investigating the impact of the project on the nearby avenue of honour trees.

The Calder Woodburn Memorial Avenue is Australia’s longest eucalypt memorial avenue, consisting of over 2400 native trees commemorating all those who served in World War II from Shepparton and the surrounding areas. The avenue is included in the Victorian Heritage Register, and the future of the trees have always been an important consideration to any upgrade works. The Kialla West Primary School council are rightly frustrated that it has taken so long for Regional Roads Victoria to address this issue with Heritage Victoria, and they see it as another delay to improving the safety of their school community. It has been over three years since a little girl nearly lost her life, and the Kialla West Primary School crossing has basically remained unchanged. I urge the minister to intervene and advance this project to protect the school students, staff and families, as well as our wider community.

Transitional housing

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (18:08): (1645) My adjournment matter is for the Treasurer. The action I am seeking may not be popular. I am asking that he forgo some land tax. As chair of the homelessness inquiry, I was really privileged to hear so many community organisations talk about initiatives for solving homelessness. As we know, even with the big build and with everything we see, it is only a drop in the ocean of what we need. We are going to take decades to meet that need.

One of the initiatives that we heard about and I am sure many of you in this chamber have heard about was Housing All Australians. This is by a man called Robert Pradolin. He has been working with developers who have empty buildings that are going through significant planning processes and so are going to remain empty for many years. He then talks to the owners of those buildings and gets them to hand them over while he then retrofits those buildings for transitional housing for people experiencing homelessness. He then gets groups like the YWCA or the Salvos in to provide the wraparound services that those people need. It is extremely successful. We have seen a beautiful development in South Melbourne doing this, and I recently went to a new development called Garden House. We have got a great developer called the Pask Group, who have a building in East Melbourne, and they are willing to do the same. When they do this we have tradies, we have students, we have retail outlets and we have hotels all donating everything we need to make these places just beautiful. I saw Garden House, and I can only imagine how it felt for a woman who had escaped violence, had been living in a violent situation and had been forced into homelessness to open the door to this beautiful room that was just for her, that was safe and that had all the services.

So the action that I am seeking from the Treasurer is to look at how he may be able to forgo the land tax on buildings that are leased to charities for peppercorn rent to provide transitional accommodation for community purposes. This land tax holiday would only be while that building was being used for transitional housing, but I think this would give some of those developers the nudge they need to use those buildings for transitional housing while they go through the process of many years that it will take them to develop that land.

School cleaning

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:11): (1646) My adjournment is for the Minister for Education. Parents in Melbourne’s north have told me they are concerned about the cleanliness of schools and the need for extra cleaning during the COVID pandemic and when it goes back into normal practice. They have told me that cleanliness has fallen well below standard, and the parents are worried that the poor deep cleaning of classrooms is putting their families at risk.

The minister might remember that in 2017 and 2018 I, alongside my coalition colleagues, opposed the government in this house on their decision to reduce government school cleaning contractors from 150 to less than eight, hurting many small family businesses and removing choice for principals. Many of those school cleaning contractors that lost this work were very small businesses—mums and dads—and the principals did not want them to go either, because those cleaners did so much more than just cleaning. They put up shelves, they did some painting, they put the school crossing flags out and brought them in, and I know on one occasion when the school security alarm went off and no teacher or principal could be raised the cleaner came back from their holidays down on the Bellarine Peninsula all the way to the school in Melbourne’s north to reset the alarm, such was the breadth of services that the cleaners provided because they were part of the school community. They were part of that school family, and the government disaggregated all of that.

The new cleaning system centralised by the department has been in for a few years now, and it is unsatisfactory according to a lot of people. I will not name individual schools, for obvious reasons, but they come from the Craigieburn area and outer areas of Melbourne’s north, as well as some of the inner areas. Teachers are getting into school at 7 in the morning to clean their classrooms to make sure they are satisfactory for the kids to arrive. This system has clearly fallen down. So the action that I seek from the minister is to direct the Department of Education and Training to conduct an urgent quality review into the school cleaning system and investigate a revised system that will allow principals, parents and school councils to have more of a say in their choice of school cleaner, because the schools in Melbourne’s north—the parents, the teachers and the students—deserve much better.

COVID-19 vaccination

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:13): (1647) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health. The action I am seeking is for the minister to allow unvaccinated workers to go to work if they have had a recent negative COVID test. The government says that vaccines reduce the likelihood that you will catch COVID, therefore reducing the likelihood that you will spread it to others. It is not entirely clear that this is true, but there is another way to achieve these results: rapid antigen testing, RAT. If you get a test that comes back negative, the chance you have COVID is very low—a better chance that you do not have COVID than with the vaccines. If the Victorian Parliament had been using RAT on people entering, we might not have had the current COVID exposure scare that we got today.

Many of the workers we are losing to vaccine mandates are teachers and nurses. I know because they contact my office pleading for me to help save their jobs. There are many other skilled workers and specialists that support a wide range of fields as well. We cannot afford to lock 5 to 10 per cent of the population out of the economy. You may think it is silly to avoid getting a COVID vaccine, but it is even sillier to ignore a potential compromise that would improve public safety. Why not allow unvaccinated people to go to work if they have taken a rapid antigen test? We can choose to be forceful, coercive and spiteful towards those who refuse vaccination, or we can be understanding, conciliatory and open minded. Maybe the protests outside would grow smaller if we did.

I call on the minister to back down on the forced vaccination mandates and to find accommodations for those concerned about being vaccinated. At the very least, allow unvaccinated people to participate in society if they have received a recent negative test result. It is not asking for the world, it is just treating people with basic respect.

Western Victoria Transmission Network Project

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:15): (1648) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns AusNet’s proposed landholder compensation plan for the Western Victoria Transmission Network Project. AusNet’s recent media release notes that landholders who have a transmission line easement acquired on their property will receive a payment calculated by an official valuer in accordance with the principles contained in the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 and the Valuation of Land Act 1960. Enticing sums like $50 million and $200 000 per tower have been spread around the media, no doubt with the intention of softening and dividing the opposition. So I just want to put on record here the powerful and principled statement by Emma Muir, chair of the Moorabool Central Highlands Power Alliance, whose family are directly affected landholders. She said:

… “AusNet have finally put a price on our lives and livelihoods. The proposed compensation package for those impacted … is an insult.”

The media release continues:

AusNet is forging ahead with a project that will see bushfire risk skyrocket, farms that have been in families for generations wiped out and Victoria’s $250 million potato industry decimated—along with the 1250 jobs it supports.

AusNet’s wants to buy our community’s silence for $200,000 per 85m-high transmission tower …

No amount of money will protect us from the threat of bushfire, save our farms from devastation or stop the loss of precious landscapes.

Our community is not for sale. The compensation plan is a PR stunt that attempts to divert people away from the devastating impacts of the project.

If this is the view even of those who would be compensated, what about the rest of the community? As AusNet have stated:

… formal compensation is limited to the acquisition of an easement on landholders’ properties within the proposed route. If you are visually impacted, as many will be, you will not be compensated at all. There is currently no policy or framework to benefit impacted neighbours.

The action I seek from the minister is clarification of this. Working with the network planners, what is your plan for the people living near to these proposed monster towers? If you cannot even persuade the compensated landowners, can you really believe you will ever persuade the neighbouring communities?

VicRoads complaints

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (18:18): (1649) My adjournment tonight is for Minister Carroll in the other place. A friend of mine, Vittorio, moved to Melbourne 60 years ago from a small town in Italy, like many, to start a new life. When he arrived in the 1950s he went and got his licence from VicRoads, or whatever it was called in those days. Unfortunately the fellow who printed the licence left out one T in Vittorio’s name. You see, Vittorio is spelt with two Ts. It took many years until Vittorio realised his name was spelt incorrectly. Like many, he shrugged it off. After all, it was only his licence. Through the years his name has been spelt correctly on all other documents, among them passports, marriage certificates, citizenship certificates, Medicare cards and pension cards. It was only very recently that this one spelling mistake made over 60 years ago became a roadblock.

Vittorio and his family have been trying to wrestle with the MyGovID so that he can manage all his taxes, claims and support online. Of course the computer needed some primary documents: a passport—Vittorio’s expired in 2013, he is 86 and he is not planning on going anywhere at the moment; a Medicare card, which has the correct spelling on it for his name; a citizenship certificate, whose document number would not register in the system; and of course his drivers licence, which does not match the other primary documents. The computer would not accept the differing spellings, so Vittorio visited VicRoads to change his name. VicRoads asked for 100 points of identification. The expired passport was not accepted. Vittorio had no birth certificate from Italy in the 1940s. His marriage certificate was apparently not registered with Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria.

I think you can see where I am going here. Vittorio tried to apply for a new marriage certificate from births, deaths and marriages. Then they asked for 100 points of identification. With no other options, Vittorio has now had to pay $170 for a new passport and wait six to eight weeks just so he can get his ‘T’ back. Let us keep in mind with this mistake of VicRoads some 60 years ago that Vittorio could speak very little English when he arrived. Even now we do not know if the passport application will go through, given the other documents do not match. Vittorio was told at VicRoads this has been an issue affecting many in recent years, since we digitised all identity checks and government services.

The federal government is quite happy to pay Vittorio his pension through his pension card. Vittorio has lived in the same house for 50 years. There are no other Vittorios at this address. This is bureaucracy gone mad, so I ask: will the minister please intervene with VicRoads and help Vittorio find his missing ‘T’?

Family violence

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:21): (1650) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, and it really comes off the back of the motion today from Ms Maxwell and the importance of family but also the importance of ensuring that victim-survivors are protected and that there are prevention mechanisms around domestic violence. My specific request for the minister relates to the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence, noting that the recommendations—there are 227 of them—have been handed down and certainly many have been responded to. There has been the establishment of the family violence and service delivery reform unit. However, there is certainly still work to be done, so my request for the minister—the action I seek—is that the minister explain a time line for the 23 recommendations that are yet to be delivered upon and explain that time line to me so I can pass that on to my constituents in Eastern Victoria Region.

One of the things that we have certainly heard about today is the issue around coercive control—that subtle form of domestic violence. It is not subtle if you are living through it and existing in it, but it can be subtle in that the legislation has not yet picked up the key elements of coercive control or made it a criminal proceeding in a criminal act. We heard today again about the importance of family—the need to protect families and the need to protect women in our family system and certainly to operate to prevent coercive behaviour and to make sure the perpetrators of coercive behaviour that deteriorates into family violence are acted against, making sure that these sorts of behaviours are stamped out so that victims do not become occupants of the morgue, that victims do not become the lost for families and that victims become victim-survivors and, in the end, victim thrivers. So I call on the minister to explain to my constituents the remaining 23 recommendations of the royal commission. What is she going to do, and when and how, to complete those remaining 23?

COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (18:24): (1651) I wish to raise an adjournment matter for the Minister for Health, and it is in relation to some of the findings of the Victorian Auditor-General’s report Management of Spending in Response to COVID-19, which was tabled just a few weeks ago in the house. I have spoken about this report on a number of occasions, and I have mentioned the critical incident procurement process, which has been fairly lax, I would have to say. Now, in the report—I am going to quote this—is the ‘contracting a senior executive through a single quote’ process. The government will use the excuse of COVID: ‘We had to do this in a hurry’. They will use a whole manner of excuses for the huge expenditure that they have undertaken to manage COVID. Of course we all understand that there has to be some expenditure and there has to be some flexibility in some of the decisions, but nevertheless there have to be some proper processes and checks and balances put in place as well. That clearly was not done in terms of the contracting of a senior executive which used a single quote. The report goes on to say:

The procurement documents argue that DHHS needed to use a CIP process because the position related to a pending government announcement.

DHHS’s documentation states that the executive officer was directly engaged as a contractor for one year for $594 595 … via a single quote from an ‘identified candidate’.

Now, this just seems to me like it is another jobs-for-the-boys position. It is a huge amount of money—over half a million dollars for this. There was no proper process, and:

An internal memorandum states that DHHS considered value for money by comparing the role ‘to other like-roles and similar procurements’. However, DHHS’s records do not explain …

the following, and this is to the point of my adjournment matter:

how it identified the candidate

how the procurement compares to similar roles and procurements

how and why the agreed remuneration exceeded the job description by more than $250 000 and the relevant pay band by $230 000.

This in itself is a scandal, so the action I seek is for the minister to provide an explanation as to why exactly those records do not explain exactly what happened, how that candidate was identified and those aspects that I have pointed out—why the procurement compares to similar roles and other aspects in DHHS procurement policy and why the agreed remuneration exceeded the job description. What an absolute scandal.

Responses

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:27): There were 11 matters for the adjournment from 11 different MLCs to eight different ministers, and I will make sure those matters get to those ministers.

The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 6.28 pm.