Thursday, 29 October 2020

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 10.04 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The PRESIDENT (10:05): 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.

Papers

Parliamentary Budget Office

Report 2019–20

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:06): Pursuant to section 28 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer Act 2017, on behalf of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, I lay on the table the Parliamentary Budget Office report 2019–20.

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

AMES Australia—Report, 2019–20.

Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI)—Report, 2019–20.

City West Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Council of Trustees of the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV)—Report, 2019–20.

Development Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Docklands Studios Melbourne Pty Ltd—Report, 2019–20.

Eastern Health—Report, 2019–20.

Education and Training Department—Report, 2019–20.

Emergency Services Superannuation Scheme (ESSSuper)—Report, 2019–20.

Environment, Land, Water and Planning Department—Report, 2019–20.

Film Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Health and Human Services Department—Report, 2019–20.

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984—Notice pursuant to section 32 in relation to Statutory Rule No. 102.

Jobs, Precincts and Regions Department—Report, 2019–20.

Justice and Community Safety Department—Report, 2019–20.

Library Board of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Health—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Port Lessor Pty Ltd—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Recital Centre—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Monash Health—Report, 2019–20.

Museums Board of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Ombudsman—Investigation into complaints about assaults of five children living in Child Protection residential care units, October 2020 (Ordered to be published).

Police Registration and Services Board—Report, 2019–20.

Portable Long Service Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Port of Hastings Development Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Premier and Cabinet Department—Report, 2019–20.

Prevention of Family Violence Act 2018—Respect Victoria Report, 2019–20.

Queen Victoria Women’s Centre—Minister’s report of receipt of 2019–20 report.

Racing Integrity Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Regional Development Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2017—Victorian Renewable Energy Target—Progress Report, 2019–20, under section 8 of the Act.

Road Safety Camera Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Rolling Stock Holdings (Victoria) Pty Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Rolling Stock (Victoria-VL) Pty Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Rolling Stock (VL-1) Pty Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Rolling Stock (VL-2) Pty Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Rolling Stock (VL-3) Pty Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Royal Children’s Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Shrine of Remembrance Trustees—Report, 2019–20.

South East Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Transport Accident Commission (TAC)—Report, 2019–20.

Transport Department—Report, 2019–20.

Treasury and Finance Department—Report, 2019–20.

Treasury Corporation of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Victoria Police—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Arts Centre Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Catchment Management Council—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Electoral Commission—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Inspectorate—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Managed Insurance Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Multicultural Commission—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Public Sector Commission—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Racing Integrity Board—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Rail Track (VicTrack)—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Regional Channels Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Small Business Commission—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Victorian Veterans Council—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian WorkCover Authority (WorkSafe)—Report, 2019–20.

Yarra Valley Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Notices given.

Notices of intention to make statements

Notice given.

Committees

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Membership

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:15): I move, by leave:

That Ms Watt be a participating member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the house

General business

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:15): I move, by leave:

That the resolution of Tuesday, 27 October 2020, setting precedence for general business tomorrow be rescinded and precedence be given to the following general business on Friday, 30 October 2020:

(1) order of the day 37, resumption of debate on the motion relating to disallowance of the Environment Protection (Management of Tunnel Boring Machine Spoil) Regulations 2020;

(2) notice of motion 394 standing in the name of Mr Davis in relation to the production of documents relating to public health and other orders; and

(3) notice of motion 399 standing in the name of Mr Davis in relation to the Suburban Rail Loop business case.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

Indian community celebrations

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (10:16): Last week was a very important week for the Indian community. In Melbourne we celebrated three prominent online festivals: Navratri, Bathukamma and Vijayadashami, also known as Dussehra. Point Cook Royals, a community organisation, provides vital support to senior citizens in my constituency. They celebrated the Navratri garba festival virtually. Navratri is celebrated across India for nine consecutive days. The best part of the event was that not only Gujaratis but many other community members did garba from their home virtually on the best beats selected.

On another note, the Melbourne Telangana Forum located in Braybrook is a not-for-profit organisation and does great work in preserving and promoting the Telugu culture through various activities annually. It was great to join their Bathukamma festival online. Bathukamma represents the cultural spirit of Telangana. ‘Bathukamma’ is a beautiful flower stack. It is the festival for feminine felicitation. It depicts the unity and empowerment of women. This is clearly visible in the big group of female members of this forum.

On a further note, Sewa International Australia is an organisation that also has a presence in my constituency. Sewa International supported the victims of bushfires earlier this year by hosting blood donation camps, tree planting and community clean-up programs and recently assisted international students. Their online celebration of Vijayadashami was enjoyed by many dignitaries.

Dussehra is a festival that signifies the win of good over evil. I am proud of these organisations who do great community work in my constituency.

Northern Metropolitan Region sporting clubs

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:18): I rise this morning to congratulate three elite sporting clubs in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region who have had recent success. Firstly, to the Melbourne Vixens, the Suncorp Super Netball league champions this year, congratulations on your great victory led by Richelle McKenzie, the chair of Netball Victoria. To Simone McKinnis, the head coach of Melbourne Vixens, to Kate Moloney and Liz Watson, the co-captains of Melbourne Vixens—I have known Kate since she was a little girl playing at Diamond Creek netball club—and to the players and staff of Melbourne Vixens, congratulations on your win. To the NRL champions, Melbourne Storm—to Matt Tripp, the chairman of Melbourne Storm, to Craig Bellamy, the coach, and to Cameron Smith and the players and staff—congratulations on a great win in the NRL. And sadly time allows, so I also congratulate the AFL premiers this year, the Richmond Football Club, on their victory last Saturday evening, amongst great competition I have to say. What a great game it was, at least until half-time. To Peggy O’Neal, the president of Richmond, for her leadership, to Damien Hardwick, the coach, and his coaching team for their tremendous work in delivering another premiership to Richmond, to Trent Cotchin, who I have known since he was a little boy playing out in West Preston, to the players and staff of Richmond Football Club: congratulations. That is three elite sporting clubs in the Northern Metropolitan Region, all of whom are champions.

Wild horse control

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:19): While most of the nation’s attention will be on racehorses over the next week, I want to bring the chamber’s attention to the plight of some other equines, Victoria’s brumbies. Much like the horses we keep as companions, brumbies are intelligent and social creatures deserving of protection. The New South Wales government recently declared support for immunocontraceptive darting as a humane alternative to brumby culls in Kosciuszko National Park, with trials to begin urgently. Humane fertility control has been proven to be successful in the long-term management of wild horse populations for over two decades. Current killing campaigns in Victoria impose horrific suffering by implementing aerial shooting by helicopter. These methods are extremely cruel and often ineffective, causing serious injury by allowing populations to persist. I hope the government will follow the example set in New South Wales by choosing kindness for wild brumbies in Victoria.

COVID-19

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:20): I rise today to congratulate the Parliament itself, which has through its catering and services teams managed to prepare more than 800 000 meals for needy Victorians since the pandemic took over Victoria and devastated the financial security of so many individuals, families and communities. What we have seen behind the scenes is an epic effort to make sure, without expectation of recognition or reward, that some of the most vulnerable members of our communities have not gone without. This is thanks to the catering team and management and all of the staff within the Department of Parliamentary Services who have facilitated this arrangement. Thank you also to the Presiding Officers and in particular to the former President Minister Leane, who was the first to come up with this idea, which has now also been adopted in other jurisdictions—a wonderful and innovative use of resources.

On another related matter, it is wonderful to see staff back at Parliament and in particular chef Mel, who makes—and I will fight anyone on this—the best scones in Victoria. It is an absolute delight to see people out and about and enjoying culinary fare just like that prepared by chef Mel, and I want to congratulate her not just for her work with scones but also for her work behind the scenes in assisting people in need to continue to be able to eat well and live well during the pandemic.

Sunnyside House Ladies Auxiliary

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:22): I rise today to congratulate the Sunnyside House Ladies Auxiliary on their proud 70 years of service to the Camperdown community. The auxiliary runs a popular local op shop which raises money through the hard work of volunteers and generous donations of local residents for Sunnyside House, a community-owned, not-for-profit nursing home that provides 40 residential aged-care beds. It has raised more than $1.8 million for Sunnyside House. Before becoming a Corangamite shire councillor, I was pleased to volunteer at that op shop. It is also exciting that the op shop will be extending and expanding through the purchase of the adjoining premises. Sunnyside House and its op shop are bastions of charity, self-sufficiency and a lack of dependence on government largesse. I congratulate all involved on their exemplary 70 years of service to Sunnyside aged-care residents, and I especially pay tribute to the longest serving volunteer, Loris Rippon, who has been at the op shop since 1985.

Year 12 students

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10:23): I want to send my congratulations and best wishes to all the year 12 students across Victoria, who attended their final days of school over the past week. The VCE cohort are in the final stretch, and after an extremely difficult year I am sure there are plenty of nerves and some cramming to try and make every moment count as they head into exams. It will have been a unique year too for VCAL students, who would usually have so many hands-on projects integrated into their learning, and for teachers across Victoria it was very difficult to deliver this year with so many of those normal activities not able to occur. I want to thank the students for trying their best in the most disjointed circumstances, their families who supported them along the way and the teachers that tried to make the journeys as smooth as possible. I congratulate all students and wish them a bright and successful future.

Australian National Veterans Arts Museum

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (10:24): Part of the great honour of being the Minister for Veterans is the privilege to meet a lot of groups of veterans that are basically set up to look out for each other, and one of those groups I met recently was the board members of the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum. I want to thank Mark Johnston, Dominik Kul and Greg Yorke for the conversation that I had with them and for imparting their knowledge on to me of how important they have found art therapy in the veteran community that they have been working with. The ANVAM was established in 2013 in response to a growing need for an innovative model of care for veterans’ wellbeing. It is a veteran-led charity and public benevolent institution that supports the mental, physical and social wellbeing of current and former serving members and also, importantly, their families through community-based facilitated arts engagement. President, I will put you on notice: I will be writing to you soon. When we can use Queen’s Hall for exhibitions next year, when hopefully health restrictions permit, I think it would be a fantastic thing for ANVAM to be able to display their great pieces of art to us one sitting week.

Lucas Furlan

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:26): I would like to share with the house the name of a young athlete that is destined to become a household name in Victoria in the near future. Fourteen-year-old Lucas Furlan is an upcoming clay target shooter champion from the great town of Toongabbie in my electorate. He trains at the Morwell Gun Club and Morwell Field & Game, both fantastic places to get support, tuition and mentorship. In 2019 Lucas won the junior boys state championship while he was shooting with his secondary college, Lavalla Catholic College. Now, this is a 14-year-old young man. He is currently training hard for the 2021 national shooting championships, and he is a member of the Gippsland Sports Academy, a great academy that covers off on the six Gippsland local government areas and provides excellent technical coaching and tuition to our young and upcoming stars. He only started shooting in 2018, encouraged by his father, Walter, who is also an avid shooter. While having met many challenges to train during COVID, Lucas scored a first in A grade at the Champion of Champions, shooting an impressive 121 out of 125. His father, Walter; mother, Joanne; and siblings, Alyssa and Jake, are incredibly proud of Lucas. Let us see his name rising to the stars in the future.

COVID-19

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (10:27): I rise today to speak about the ending of lockdown in Victoria. This news probably should have come far sooner. Probably we should never have locked down. Probably we should have found better methods of dealing with the threat of coronavirus. The end of lockdown marks the end of phase 1 of the coronavirus epoch. It marks the end of the government’s most direct and blunt intervention. But with blunt intervention comes bruises. I am not talking about the actual bruises of anyone who fell afoul of VicPol enforcing the government edicts but of the economic bruises.

The epoch is not over. The government’s inflammatory response to coronavirus has wounded our economy, and these wounds will scar because the government believes their own spin. Last sitting week I asked the government how many Victorians had lost their jobs due to lockdown. The government told me they had created 10 000 jobs. Only a government that has lost contact with reality could with a straight face say that banning almost all commercial activity for months caused a gain of 10 000 jobs. Only those who have been drinking the Kool Aid or eating the doughnuts could believe it. The term ‘politically correct’ comes from the USSR and originally referred to things which were deemed officially true by the party even though everybody knew they were false. For the Victorian ALP it is politically true that the Victorian economy is booming. Many Victorians see through this and know that they will spend the better part of the next decade trying to get back to where their lives were before this government destroyed them.

Australian of the Year Awards

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:29): Each year as part of the Australian of the Year Awards some outstanding Victorians are selected to progress to the national level of judging in several categories. Yesterday the winners of the 2021 Victorian Australian of the Year Awards were announced. Seventeen Victorians have been nominated for their selfless dedication and contribution to the community. The Australian of the Year 2021 nominations include nominees such as a neurologist whose invention translates thought to action for paralysed patients, a 16-year-old who founded Keeley’s Cause to provide tailored education plans to children with autism or an intellectual disability and a 92-year-old pioneer in the study of dementia. I am particularly proud to mention the Victorian Senior Australian of the Year, Mrs Bich Cam Nguyen, a key figure in the Vietnamese community. Since 2004, 80-year-old Cam’s work as the CEO and secretary of the Australian Vietnamese Women’s Association has helped refugees and migrants find support and overcome adversity. I also want to congratulate all the other winners, including Ms Donna Stolzenberg, Victorian Australian of the Year; and Ms Tayla Harris, Victorian Young Australian of the Year. Nevertheless, the achievements of all these 17 accomplished nominees are indeed a testament to Victoria’s creativity, innovativeness and selflessness. We are indebted to all nominees for their contribution to our community, state and country.

The PRESIDENT: Again I would like to remind members to please check the clock.

International education and training

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:31): The international education sector in Victoria is increasingly concerned at the failure of this government to recognise its plight. Obviously international education has been heavily hit by the effects of the pandemic and the consequential lockdowns in Victoria and indeed across Australia. But it has reached the point where the International Education Association of Australia is now saying that the state that depends on international education more than any other is least prepared for the return of international students. That is an indictment of the Victorian government—that we are in such a situation where indeed we are the state that most relies on international education. In 2018 there were 227 000 international students studying in Victoria. They were generating around $12 billion of export revenue and supporting 79 000 jobs, so it is a very significant sector of the Victorian economy—or was. And this government has failed to prepare for its return. We have seen just this year the end of the Victorian international education strategy, a five-year strategy which lapsed in the middle of this year with no replacement, and we have seen the government disband the International Education Advisory Council in September—two critical items which are required for the return of international education. Other states are getting on with it. Students are returning to the Northern Territory and South Australia, and the Victorian government must lift its game and must ensure that we have a plan and we have a strategy in place for the return of international students as quickly as possible.

Festival Hall

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (10:32): Melbourne’s iconic Festival Hall was already a place where people came to worship. They worshipped Johnny Cash, Rage Against the Machine, the Living End, Oasis, even Frank Sinatra, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Powderfinger and the Beatles. Also known as the house of stoush, Melburnians also made their way to Festival Hall to worship at the feet of the gods of boxing, like Lionel Rose, Anthony Mundine, Lester Ellis and Barry Michael. For the 1956 Olympics the sporting gods took over. It also hosted those who worshipped consumerism, being the home for the popular TV show The Price Is Right. I could go on. But now it will have worshippers of only one kind—evangelical Christians. Only those who worship with Brian Houston, the son of the disgraced pastor, can show their faces there now after it was revealed that Hillsong Church has purchased the venue and intends to redevelop it as its headquarters. What a terrible loss to our city. What a sad end to the life of a place that has brought together so many people from all walks of life.

Glen Huntly level crossing removals

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:34): I am very, very pleased about the recent announcement from our government of the removal of the dangerous and congested level crossings at Neerim Road and Glen Huntly Road. This is really fabulous for the local community, can I tell you, because that congestion is a bugbear—it is a bugbear not only for the 20 000 vehicles at both of the level crossings but also for the cyclists and the pedestrians. You know, all round it is a pain and it is also dangerous, so it is really timely. Early works will start in 2021 and major works on the rail trench will start the following year. We are targeting boom gate removal in 2023 and project completion in 2024, one year ahead of schedule. How about that. What is this going to entail? What does this mean for the local community? It means a new Glenhuntly station, a new rail trench under Neerim and Glen Huntly roads, track and signalling work at Caulfield station, safer intersections, no more dangerous tram square, better local connections, improved traffic flow and less congestion. So what is the role of the community now? We actually want your feedback. We want you to tell us what is important to you about your area and what improvements you would like to see as part of the project. This will help us understand local impacts, develop the best design for the area and inform the planning approval process. So how can you provide feedback? You can provide feedback online at engagevic.gov.au or in hard copy.

COVID-19

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10:35): I am proud to rise and pay tribute to the people of Greater Shepparton for their actions under such adversity during the recent COVID-19 outbreak in Shepparton. Residents of my home town were innocent victims when an infected person visited and unknowingly spread the terrible virus. The people of Greater Shepparton are most protective of each other, and they responded magnificently to the call to come forward and be tested. People waited for hours with queues stretching for blocks as locals did the right thing. Over 7000 Greater Shepparton residents were tested, and I congratulate the entire community on this magnificent effort. This hard work paid off, with the active cases contained to only the original three, and yesterday Greater Shepparton was officially declared to have zero active cases. I would like to congratulate and thank Goulburn Valley Health CEO Matt Sharp and the entire health team for their tireless work, and I also thank the ADF, Barwon, Bendigo, Albury-Wodonga, Alexandra, Ballarat and Northeast health services for the assistance that they provided. In addition I would like to thank the City of Greater Shepparton and everyone involved in the response to this outbreak. I would also like to encourage locals to get behind the businesses who were affected by this outbreak to assist them to recover from the time they were forced to close their doors.

Wild horse control

Ms LOVELL: I would like to thank Renee Neubauer and Marilyn Nuske from the Brumbies Matter group, who sent me the beautiful mask I have been wearing today. Emblazoned with the words ‘Save our brumbies’ and a picture of a herd of brumbies in the Barmah forest, the mask is a perfect reminder to all members of this chamber and particularly the government members that on 3 June— (Time expired)

Deer hunting

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:37): I am going to start today with the fact that the Blond Bay and Snake Island hog deer ballot is open, and for those that are interested in such pursuits it is a good time to go online and to register your interest. It is all part of the management of the hog deer, which is the only deer that has got any form of management at all.

Rod Drew

Mr BOURMAN: I am also going to take the time to mark the passing of Rod Drew. I met Rod in 2013 or 2014 on my journey to this place, and he was very unassuming but was a very, very wise man and in a lot of ways he helped me. As he moved through the end of his life it was amazing to find out how much he had to do with the shooting sports in general. He recently was at the SIFA, the Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia, following which after a relatively nasty bout of cancer he passed away. Vale, Rod Drew.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:38): I move:

That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 409, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:39): I rise to make some brief remarks on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, which is largely a tidy-up bill with respect to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 and the Retirement Villages Act 1986. Arising from the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018, the bill seeks to make a couple of primary amendments. Clauses 3 to 11 of the bill deal with unintended consequences for the social housing sector arising from the reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, which were introduced by the 2018 amending bill. This bill addresses three areas. It clarifies that the director of housing will not contravene the anti-discrimination provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act by allocating tenancies to applicants with the greatest housing need. That is clause 5. It exempts the director of housing from requiring renters to use the commonwealth’s Centrepay system, and it clarifies that changes to rental rebates are not considered a rent increase under the Residential Tenancies Act. That is clauses 7 to 11. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with consequential amendments arising from the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019 relating to special disability accommodation. Clause 12 provides that an SDA resident that has been coerced or deceived into entering a rental agreement is able to terminate that agreement, and clause 13 requires that where an SDA resident has been given notice to vacate they receive not less than 14 days notice under that provision.

The amendments to the Retirement Villages Act 1986 relate to the recovery of refundable contributions made when a person moves into a retirement village. There have been a number of instances where people seeking to exit retirement villages have had their right to recover the ingoing fees frustrated. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for greater capacity for people exiting a retirement village to recover those fees and to provide a stronger mechanism for the recovery of those fees, and indeed make it easier for former residents to obtain relief through the Supreme Court through the enforcement of a judgement debt and indeed make it easier to then trigger an intervention by the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria.

The bill is largely administrative. It does correct, as I said, a number of unintended consequences from the 2018 amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act. With respect to social housing, it clarifies that the director of housing can allocate properties where the need is without inadvertently triggering discrimination provisions in the general act. It also, as I said, addresses the retirement villages matter, which I will come to shortly.

It is worth placing on record that the real estate sector this year has been particularly hard hit by the government’s response to COVID. We have seen the residential property sector hit particularly hard in terms of its capacity to undertake inspections and to undertake sales auctions, property inspections, rental inspections and the management of a rental payroll. We have also seen the retail and commercial property sector particularly hard hit by the decision of national cabinet to intervene in the relationship between commercial tenants and landlords, which to this day I see as a bizarre intervention between the contractual relationship of a tenant and a landlord. That decision has put in place a one-size-fits-all structure which does not have any regard to the actual circumstances of the relationships between commercial tenants and landlords, and it has caused a whole raft of unintended consequences.

I have seen in my own electorate an imbalance between the market power of the tenant and the landlord. When these provisions were put in place it was assumed that the landlord had the power over the tenant. In reality there are many commercial situations where that power imbalance is reversed. I have seen numerous examples in my electorate where the tenant is in fact holding the power. They are a large retailer or quite often a large fast-food provider and they are dealing with a landlord who may be a small landlord—a small number of couples holding a commercial property—and the tenant has been able to use these provisions agreed by the national cabinet to the disadvantage of the small landlord. So there have been some perverse outcomes from that intervention, which have hit the commercial property sector in addition to the hit we have seen on the residential property sector because of the restrictions on the ability to conduct sales and the ability to conduct inspections and the like.

In relation to the Retirement Villages Act, those changes are welcome. Retirement villages—as with nursing homes, but retirement villages in particular with this bill—are one of the vexed issues in our community because it is often assumed by people entering a retirement village that they have a property right. When you move into a retirement village the assumption is often made that you have a property right in doing that, which of course is not the case. A person moving into a retirement village has an entitlement to occupy a place in the village, but they do not own it. They do not own the property, and that is where a number of disputes have arisen when people have sought to exit a retirement village believing they have a property right—that they can sell—and they find that the terms and conditions of exit are not what they expected and the nature of their interest in the village is not what they expected, with consequential concerns. That is why this particular change to the Retirement Villages Act is important in reinforcing the right of a person to recover their refundable ingoing payments in relation to retirement villages.

As we see an increasingly ageing population and an increase in demand for retirement village-type accommodation and an increase in demand for nursing home-type accommodation, these issues of property rights versus the right of occupancy for a period of time are going to become more acute, and I think we are going to need to see increasing changes in the way in which consumer rights are protected in that type of environment. This is a simple bill. It corrects some unintended consequences in addition to that change to retirement villages, and the coalition does not oppose it.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:47): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to support the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I was also pleased to hear Mr Rich-Phillips’s contribution and his acknowledgement that this bill is a good bill and one that should be supported. It is important, having now been in this place for over 12 months, that I reflect upon the fact that it is a unique opportunity when we have some bipartisan support for legislative reform. I understand many members of the crossbench are also supporting it; I see Mr Meddick attentively watching in this chamber. It is important. Consumer protections are vital, and I think this bill fundamentally is about that. Of course, as also acknowledged by the previous speaker, the bill is quite administrative and technical in nature, but I think it is also important to reflect upon those technical and administrative changes being made so we all have a better understanding of the bill before us.

The bill consists of amendments concerning social and affordable housing, specialist disability accommodation and retirement villages to ensure the continued protection of vulnerable Victorians. These amendments to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 (RTA act) and the Retirement Villages Act 1986 will enhance their function, clarify confusing requirements and update outdated references. They respond to the concerns of important stakeholders, including residents of retirement villages in Victoria, the Victorian Public Tenants Association and the Property Council of Australia’s Victorian division, and they have been drafted upon diligent consultation with all of them.

Many of the amendments to the Retirement Villages Act set out in the bill have been developed in response to the difficulties faced by former residents of Berkeley Living, a retirement village in the bayside suburb of Patterson Lakes. For those of you not familiar, Patterson Lakes is in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, and the Berkeley Living retirement village became bankrupt a few years ago. Some members here might remember the investigation and subsequent hurdles for former village residents in recovering their contributions, which they have continued to face until today. The amendments to the Retirement Villages Act remove these regulatory obstacles for former residents of retirement villages seeking to recover unpaid ingoing contributions where the owner of the retirement village has become bankrupt or insolvent. It provides a framework for the delivery of justice for those who have fought a longstanding battle against confusing contracts, difficulties in seeking legal intervention and complex ownership structures. The amendments to the RTA act contained in this bill will enable social and affordable housing to continue to be allocated on the basis of the housing needs of eligible applicants. It also clarifies processes relating to adjustments to rental rebates under residential rental and rooming house agreements for social housing and thresholds for giving notices for non-payment of the amount payable by renters. In addition, it corrects an error requiring the director of housing to offer the Centrepay commonwealth bill-paying service, which state and territory housing authorities are not eligible for.

This bill also makes a few amendments to the RTA act that replicate the not yet in effect specialist disability accommodation amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. These amendments, consequential to the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019, also known as the NDIS transition act, failed to come into effect earlier this year due to the deferred commencement of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. They align specialist disability accommodation provisions with mainstream tenancy rights and refine some provisions to ensure they operate as originally intended. The other amendments in this bill are minor technical changes designed to improve the operation of relevant acts and make references in line with recent legislation and policy changes.

As I stated earlier, retirement villages and the problem with getting ingoing contributions refunded was one of the main factors for the need for this bill. The amendments to the Retirement Villages Act have been developed in response to difficulties faced by the former residents of Berkeley Living. The bill has been drafted upon consultation and support from crucial stakeholders such as the Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria, the Consumer Action Law Centre, the Victorian division of the Property Council of Australia and Land Use Victoria. Over 30 families who had apartments in Berkeley Living worth millions of dollars in total are owed refundable ingoing contributions following its closure in late 2017. It is unfortunate that these former residents and their families have had to run from pillar to post in their quest to secure justice for being victims of the activities of a fraudulent retirement village operator. These residents and their family members have been unable to recover their contributions due to the retirement village’s complex ownership structure and the existing requirements of the Retirement Villages Act.

Currently the Retirement Villages Act provides that repayment of exit entitlements is secured by a first-priority charge over retirement village land. It requires residents to apply to the Supreme Court for an order enforcing the first-priority charge over the retirement village land that secures their ingoing contribution to recover moneys owed. However, such an order can only be obtained from the court if the resident applying for the order has previously been unsuccessful in enforcing a judgement debt. The order should also be deemed to be in the interests of all residents, a declaration that has time and time again proven difficult to achieve. The bill simplifies threshold requirements by removing the present requirement for a resident to obtain and seek to enforce a judgement debt before petitioning the Supreme Court to enforce a charge over the retirement village land. It provides the Supreme Court with more flexibility in making such an order by requiring that the court only needs to be satisfied that enforcing the order would be in the interests of a majority, not all, residents. These amendments to section 31 of the Retirement Villages Act will apply to charges created before the commencement of the bill. This retrospective application of the amendments is a necessary measure to ensure the benefit of former residents of Berkeley Living and any other residents that may be in a similar situation. The amendments also allow for the appointment of a person with all the requisite powers to execute an enforceable order. This reduces the need for parties to return to the court for further orders, thus minimising the cost of enforcement. When I saw this provision I reflected that you could say it is quicker or more effective justice.

These changes also mean that the Supreme Court in the interests of a majority of residents can make orders if either one or more owners of the retirement village land become insolvent. The court will also be able to make orders if either full or partial ownership of the retirement village land is vested in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the commonwealth due to its previous owners being deregistered. Besides, the bill authorises the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria in the public interest to make an application to the Supreme Court for an order enforcing the charge on behalf of affected retirement village residents. On the other hand, current legislation stipulates that the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria can only intervene after residents have commenced legal action, which has limited the government’s capacity to assist former residents of Berkeley Living. I reflected on this section as being a bit like being proactive in terms of earlier dispute resolution. This change recognises that many retirement village residents do not have the financial capacity to commence legal proceedings and allows for greater assistance by the government in recovering unpaid ingoing contributions.

Finally, the bill makes a slight change to the order in which proceedings of the sale are distributed. Under the proposed amendments, payment of costs incurred in obtaining and enforcing the order is now first in the order of priority. This approach is consistent with usual practice and the salvage principle, which provides that a person who creates a fund is entitled to their costs and expenses from that fund. This is quite common in other jurisdictions. In my previous career in personal injury when people applied to get their moneys returned from, let us say, State Trustees they would apply and the cost of making that application would be coming out of that fund.

The government recognises the urgent and significant public interest associated with this issue, and therefore these amendments are being progressed separately from the ongoing review of the Retirement Villages Act. The amendments to the Retirement Villages Act enshrined in the bill are broadly modelled on the approach taken under New South Wales retirement village legislation, with necessary modifications for the Victorian context. The changes will provide much-needed assistance to former residents of Berkeley Living and their estates in securing justice, while also taking steps to ensure that elderly Victorians and their families will not have to deal with such traumatic ordeals in the future.

There are also a number of changes to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act to clarify certain requirements in relation to social and affordable housing. The Residential Tenancies Act is generally focused on the private rental market and thus it sometimes does not reflect the nuances that apply to the social housing sector. These differences between the social housing model and the private rental market include the income-based approach to setting rent and the eligibility criteria for prospective renters being based on housing needs. The amendments in this bill address unintended consequences of the recent residential tenancy reforms that do not reflect these differences. They maintain current practice by ensuring rental rebates for social housing tenants can adequately reflect their income changes. The sector can continue to allocate housing to the people who need it the most and the director of housing can use existing arrangements with sampling for rent collection.

The income-based approach to rent setting instead of a market-based approach guarantees that most social and affordable housing rent is set based on an assessment of the renter’s capacity to pay instead of the rental value of the property on the open market. This model provides tenants with a rental rebate or discount on the rent payable under the residential rental agreement based on their income, thus resulting in a change to the amount payable by the renter but not altering the rent under the agreement.

Recent changes to the Residential Tenancies Act create ambiguity regarding whether a decrease in rental rebate is considered an increase in rent, since the act’s provisions prohibit rent increases more frequently than each 12-month period. This bill makes the important clarification that a change to the rent rebate applicable under a residential rental or rooming house agreement is not considered a rent increase. Therefore, when the commonwealth increases pensions and benefits or tenants earn a higher income or where the household composition changes, the rebate can be adjusted to reflect these household changes more than once every 12 months.

The change also protects tenants by making sure notices to vacate for rent arrears are calculated on the actual amount the tenant pays and not the non-subsidised market rent level. Maintaining these settings ensures our continued support for those living in social housing in a number of ways, including ensuring equity amongst residents on rebated rent; stepping rent increases in smaller, more frequent amounts; limiting the level to which tenant rental debt can escalate; and securing the sector’s largest revenue stream to invest back into property. Similarly, applying eligibility criteria to prospective renters that is based on housing need makes sure that the available social and affordable housing properties are leased to the renters who need it the most, such as women, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, people over 55 years of age and Aboriginal Victorians. However, it is imperative to emphasise that social and affordable housing providers will continue to be accountable for alleged discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

I also want to just make a short reflection on specialist disability accommodation (SDA) for people who require specialist housing solutions, including assistance with the delivery of support systems. This accommodation is funded under the national disability insurance scheme for a small proportion of NDIS participants with extreme functional impairment or very high support needs who meet specific criteria. Since July 2019 the specialist disability accommodation agreements have been part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and are now regulated by Consumer Affairs Victoria under Victorian renting laws.

The SDA amendments outlined in this bill replicate the ineffective amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act included in the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019. The amendments failed due to the deferred commencement of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent temporary emergency measures. These amendments protect some of Victoria’s most vulnerable residents by providing for the termination and remaking of residential rental agreements where there has been coercion or deception of an SDA resident. They also allow for a renter who is an SDA resident to issue a 14-day notice of intention to vacate in circumstances where the dwelling provider’s NDIS registration has been revoked.

Upon reflection, there are many positive developments as part of this bill. As stated, the amendments to the process for recovering unpaid ingoing contributions from retirement village operators will ensure the Berkeley Living debacle is a thing of the past. It makes sure the residents of the former retirement village can avail themselves of the benefit of these reforms by them being applicable to charges created before the commencement of the amendments. By giving the Supreme Court more flexibility and the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria greater oversight in matters relating to changes in retirement village ownership, the government is taking a decisive step to make sure Victorians who have devoted their lives to our betterment are not left in the cold to fend for themselves.

I guess, more broadly, this builds upon the government’s consumer-first and Victoria-first approach in legislating in this place. All the changes are being made to benefit broader society in Victoria and to protect our most vulnerable. I think this change builds upon that principle that this government inputs into all its legislation and bills. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (11:03): I rise to speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, a bill that amends two acts, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 and the Retirement Villages Act 1986. When it comes to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 it does two things. Clauses 3 to 11 are related to the unintended consequences for the social housing sector arising from the reforms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 that were introduced by the RTA act. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with the consequential amendments from the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019 relating to the special disability accommodation requirements. The bill then goes on to also adjust the Retirement Villages Act 1986, and it makes several amendments to that act with the intention of making it easier for residents or former residents to recover refundable ingoing contributions that are unpaid.

Whilst the Liberal-Nationals coalition will not oppose this bill today, I do not think it goes far enough. I am particularly grateful to the people who have given advice to the coalition and some to me particularly: to the Property Council of Australia in Victoria, to the Strata Community Association of Victoria and to Lawrie Robertson, the president of the Residents of Retirement Villages Victoria, who, I have to say, does an awesome job representing residents in retirement villages. He is always good with giving advice to me and my office, and I thank Lawrie for that.

Last year I called on the government to establish an ombudsman for retirement housing to ensure a low-cost, timely and binding way to resolve serious retirement housing disputes without the need to go through expensive courts and tribunals. At the time I tabled a petition with over 300 names on it calling for a retirement village ombudsman. Currently the only way that residents can get a binding determination is to make a case before VCAT. It is expensive, it is daunting and it is lengthy, and I just wonder if our older Australians deserve to go through all of that. At the last election the coalition promised that they would establish a retirement village ombudsman that would provide free, independent and binding dispute resolution services to resolve disputes between retirement housing residents and operators if elected, and that got great support. It got great support from the community. It got great support from people like Gerard Brody, the CEO of the Consumer Action Law Centre, who said this:

Residents living in retirement housing have been calling for an ombudsman for years—this is a huge win for fairness. Even the retirement village industry has supported an ombudsman in its ‘Eight Point Plan’ for the sector.

Our view was that the ombudsman would provide binding resolutions to eligible disputes in the retirement village sector, ensuring that those people who live in retirement villages and lifestyle villages feel safe and protected. Currently there is no dedicated process for dealing with retirement village housing disputes, which means that older Victorians who have taken the retirement village as an option in their life have to deal with disputes, as I said, through VCAT, or go to Consumer Affairs Victoria for some support, and we know that is a lengthy, lengthy process. It is also very stressful on people who have moved to retirement villages to enjoy that resort-type living, that relaxed type of living that they are entitled to after all those years of work, to then have to go through this.

The problem with the current system is it creates more insecurity for the residents and they do not necessarily resolve the dispute. There are currently more than 440 registered retirement village operators in Victoria and around 45 000 residents. Older Victorians deserve to have their disputes resolved with retirement villages and retirement housing accommodation in a quick, fair and cost-effective manner. We need to rectify the problems with the current system to give older Victorians more security, more certainty and peace of mind. That is why I think this bill does not go far enough. There was a real opportunity for our government today, the government of Victoria, to establish an ombudsman for retirement villages, and they did not do it. They did not go far enough. Now, they may well argue today that the changes in this bill cover most of those things, but they do not cover everything, and that is the challenge we see today. I have asked time and time again for a government to form a position on establishing a retirement village ombudsman, and when you do ask you could cue the sound of crickets. There is no response to that. Why don’t they? Why don’t they today stand up for older Victorians living in retirement villages and say, ‘We will establish an independent process to help you with your disputes’? I know Lawrie Robertson, for one, would say it is a good move forward. So come on, government, why don’t you do that?

The Housing for the Aged Action Group welcomed our policy announcement at the last election. I remember at the time the HAAG chair, Phyllis Williams, said her members had been calling for an ombudsman for the retirement housing industry for years and years and years. She did say at the time, Phyll Williams:

At the moment, older residents struggle to resolve disputes with managers in quickly, cheaply and fairly. An ombudsman is sorely needed by many residents of retirement housing.

HAAG operate a retirement housing advice service which provides advice and advocacy for residents of retirement villages from basic problems through to complex contractual disputes that many who contact that service are unable—in many cases intimidated by their managers—to effect timely and affordable resolutions for. At the time some of the advice we got included one particular client of HAAG’s retirement housing advice service who had spent over six months awaiting a tribunal hearing when a village operator refused to repair a major leak in her unit that saw her bailing out buckets of water as late as 3.00 am—an 80-year-old lady bailing out buckets at 3 in the morning because she could not resolve a dispute with the manager of her retirement housing. Others found themselves confused about which fees they were liable to pay when they moved out or struggling with managers who obstructed their attempts to sell their homes.

Many residents at the time I remember were worried about facing eviction if they were seen to make any trouble with their retirement manager. This can be a financial disaster for retirees who have sunk their life savings into a very modest residence. The members of HAAG and indeed many, many Victorians living in a retirement village argue that an ombudsman is particularly suited to the needs of these older residents. So I call on the government today to take this even further—to seize the opportunity presented to us today to establish an ombudsman for retirement villages, for retirement housing, to protect our older Victorians who have worked so hard and done so well in Victoria and to protect their needs going forward.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:11): With pleasure I rise to contribute to the debate and also to support the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The bill has several components. First of all, it makes amendments to two acts—to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 and also to the Retirement Villages Act 1986—in order to address several important issues related to stakeholders, including assisting retirement village residents and also their estates if they pass away in order to recover their unpaid ingoing contributions. The bill also makes some amendments to residential tenancies legislation to clarify certain arrangements, particularly those related to social housing and also those related to specialist disability accommodation.

I would like to address first retirement villages and the issue of unpaid ingoing contributions. When a person goes into residential accommodation, the person has to pay an ingoing contribution, which can be very substantial, often amounting to several hundred thousand dollars. More often than not a person would have to sell his or her house in order to meet those requirements. When the person for some reason leaves the residential village or passes away, the ingoing contribution has to be repaid to the person or to the estate of the person. It will take some time for the matter to be settled, but it could become particularly troublesome if for some reason the retirement village went into liquidation. There were two particular cases in 2017. The Berkeley Living retirement village in Patterson Lakes went into liquidation that year. As a result the residents have been unable to recover their ingoing contributions due to the complex ownership structure that Berkeley Living had under the existing requirements of the RV act—the Retirement Villages Act.

The amendments proposed in this bill are broadly modelled on the approach taken particularly by the New South Wales retirement villages legislation. It has three components for this section. Firstly, it will omit the existing requirement for an aggrieved resident to obtain and seek to enforce a judgement debt before the Supreme Court. It is very expensive and not everyone can afford the amount of money or the time to appear before the Supreme Court to get such an enforcement judgement, so the bill will omit the existing requirement.

Secondly, the bill will provide that before making certain orders the Supreme Court need only be satisfied that doing so would be in the interests of a majority of the residents, not all residents. This is an important difference because an order to satisfy all the residents would further complicate the issue presented in front of the Supreme Court. This means that the court will now be able to make an order provided it is in the interests of the majority of the residents and the owner or the owners of the retirement village land are insolvent or where there is more than one owner of the retirement village land and one or more of those owners are insolvent and the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make such an order, or where the ownership of all or part of the retirement village land is vested in Australian Securities and Investments Commission or the commonwealth simply because that ownership was previously vested in a company that has been deregistered.

Finally, this section of the bill would also enable the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to make an application to the Supreme Court for an order enforcing the charge on behalf of the affected retirement village residents where it is in the interest of the public to do so. The government recognises that this mirrors the approach taken under the New South Wales legislation as well as being consistent with the usual practice of the law under the principle of salvage—that is, a person who creates such a fund is entitled to recover their own costs and expenses from the fund. In this particular case this is the ingoing contribution of the former resident. The government recognises the urgency and significant public interest associated with this issue, which is why these amendments are being progressed separately to the review of the RV act, which is also ongoing.

The other component of this bill is about the residential tenancy of social housing. I am deputy chair of the Legal and Social Issues Committee, and we have spent a lot of time on the inquiry into homelessness in Victoria. This is a very important and urgent issue that we are trying to inquire into to come up with some findings and recommendations. It affects the most vulnerable members of our society. At the moment the government has the Victoria Social Housing Growth Fund to the tune of $1 billion to help with social housing and affordable housing, but the stock is limited. There are 80 000 households in public or community housing in Victoria at the moment, where rents are set not by the market, appropriately, but with reference to the household income and what the household can afford to pay without being pushed into poverty. This housing is aimed at and targeted to people in greatest need—people experiencing homelessness, women and children escaping family violence, people living with a disability and those over 55.

The amendments in this bill will do three key things to ensure that the social housing system can keep operating the way it was intended to. Namely, it will ensure that rental rebates for social housing rentals can be adjusted more than once a year—not as it is at the moment, only allowing one assessment in every 12 months. The assessment will be based on the renter’s income changes. The bill also ensures the social and affordable housing sector can continue to allocate housing to the people who need it the most. It will also ensure that the director of housing can use existing automatic deduction arrangements with Centrelink, for those who are on a Centrelink payment, to collect the rent on behalf of them. These important changes will protect some of the unique features of the social and affordable housing sector.

The other thing to be noted is that it is very important that the income-based system enables rents not only to be adjusted up when the income goes up but also to be adjusted down when the household income decreases. This reform will also help to secure rental income, which is the largest income stream of the social housing sector, for reinvestment back into the portfolio so that this income can be used for crucial work, such as property maintenance. This is a very important amendment because without it there will be no power to adjust income accordingly and to reinvest that back into the portfolio.

I would like to also mention in the few minutes left the priority of housing for people who are in the greatest need of social housing. The amendments in this bill would enable so-called ‘positive discrimination’ in social and affordable housing allocation when they allocate housing, for example, to Aboriginal Victorians, to women who are experiencing family violence or to disabled or older Victorians. However, it is important to note that the amendments do not reduce social and affordable housing providers’ legal responsibility to avoid discriminatory practices. Providers will remain accountable for allegations of discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

The last component of the bill is about specialist disability accommodation. The bill includes a number of amendments which are consequential to the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019, and these amendments are intended to align the specialist disability accommodation provisions with mainstream tenancy rights and to revise some of the provisions to ensure that they operate as intended originally. So while the bill is short, small and technical, it is critically important to the protection of vulnerable Victorians. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (11:25): It is my pleasure to rise today to make a contribution also to the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. Having listened to some of the contributions this morning, it is very pleasing that there would seem to be cross-chamber support for this bill. As my friend and colleague Dr Kieu just said in his contribution, whilst the amendments to the act that the bill is making are relatively small, they are nonetheless critically important because we are dealing with and we are thinking about people with special needs living in specialist disability accommodation (SDA) or some of our older Victorians living in retirement arrangements. They, as we know, are often the most vulnerable in our community and are very deserving of the very best support that we can provide them in all aspects of their life, but of course we all know the critical nature that housing plays, particularly for people who are vulnerable for a variety of reasons. If you have not got that safe, secure, protective roof over your head, then trouble begins from that point.

So I am very pleased to rise to make my contribution to the bill that makes amendments to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 (RTAA) and the Retirement Villages Act 1986 to address important stakeholder issues, as I said, which includes assisting retirement village residents and their estates to recover their unpaid ingoing contributions. You can imagine when you get to that phase in your life that, having made all of the major, significant decisions in your life to that point where you are entering retirement home circumstances, it is probably the biggest decision that you will have made in your life. It is likely to be one of the last major decisions that you will make on a financial basis, and this bill seeks to address some of those critical areas.

The bill also makes amendments to the residential tenancies legislation to clarify certain arrangements in relation to social housing as well as specialist disability accommodation. I might begin my contribution at that point. What is the purpose of the amendments to specialist disability accommodation? Well, the amendments replicate what we say are the ineffective amendments to the RTA, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 included in the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019, which failed due to the delayed commencement of the RTAA. That NDIS transition act made a number of amendments to the RTA to enhance residency rights for SDA residents, including protections relating to unreasonable evictions and keeping pets, with the aim of more closely aligning the rights of specialist disability accommodation residents with renters under the RTA. The house would be familiar with the amendments that we brought to the RTA some time ago in relation to unreasonable evictions and indeed the keeping of pets, and this is an important area of reform. We should not have different standards in terms of things such as housing availability and the capacity for someone to live with a pet simply because they are living in specialist disability accommodation.

Why are these amendments being progressed now? Members will recall that the NDIS transition act passed this Parliament on 18 June 2019—so a little bit more than 12 months ago—and received royal assent on 25 June. The provisions of that transition act commenced on 1 July. Sections 215 and 216, which contained the relevant specialist disability accommodation provisions, purported to make amendments to new division 9 of part 2 of the RTA regarding the termination of residential rental agreements, which would be inserted by the RTAA. Commencement of the RTAA has been deferred from 1 July this year to 27 April 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the temporary emergency measures that have been put in place. As the RTAA has not commenced, there is no division 9 of part 2 of the RTA. Accordingly, the amendments that we made under sections 215 and 216 of the NDIS transition act have failed. The proposed amendments in this bill will insert the provisions directly into the RTAA so that they will commence alongside the remainder of division 9 of part 2 of the RTA upon the commencement of the RTAA. There are a few too many RTAs and RTAAs there, but I hope the house has followed the bouncing ball. I can see Mr Finn nodding in the affirmative. Thank you for keeping up with those very important changes, Mr Finn.

The amendments make two key changes. What are they? They provide for the termination and the remaking of residential rental agreements where there has been coercion or deception of an SDA resident, and they allow a renter who is an SDA resident to issue a 14-day notice of intention to vacate in circumstances where the dwelling provider’s NDIS registration has been revoked. These are very important amendments for the protection of SDA residents.

Of course, as I talked about earlier, there were some other amendments in the NDIS transition act, and it is reasonable to pose the question: have those also been impacted by the delay due to COVID-19 or have they taken effect? Some of the things that were included in the amendments to the RTA to meet Victoria’s obligations under the national quality and safeguards framework were to ensure the residential rights of NDIS participants residing in SDA are fully protected and that the duties of SDA providers are clearly set out, including penalties for non-compliance. These amendments were made to part 12 of the RTA and were therefore not contingent upon the commencement of the RTAA, so those amendments that were put in place in fact have progressed.

What is SDA accommodation? It is a very good question for the house to ask and have answered. Specialist disability accommodation refers to accommodation for people who require—

Mr Finn: That’ll be the phone, Reg. Tell them you’ll be free in 5 minutes. Call them back.

Mr GEPP: It is one of the problems with modern technology. When one has so many pieces of technology, inevitably one of them will fall foul. Can I thank Mr Bourman—at least we know that he is in his office watching me make this contribution. I thank him for making contact, and I am sure I will be greeted in a few minutes with some mirth and merriment from him when I get back to my office.

Specialist disability accommodation refers to the accommodation for people who require specialist housing solutions, including to assist with the delivery of supports that cater for their extreme functional impairment or very high support needs. The SDA residential agreements became part of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, and CAV—or Consumer Affairs Victoria—regulate these agreements under existing Victorian rental laws.

I touched on briefly at the start of my contribution—and I will quickly address these—the amendments for social and affordable housing. Why are they needed? Well, the RTA is generally focused on the private rental market, as we know. It sometimes does not really reflect the particular sets of circumstances that apply to our social housing sector, such as, for example, the income-based rent model and prioritisation of housing to those in greatest need. So the amendments address any unintended consequences of any of the RTA reforms that do not reflect these differences clearly.

These amendments—and I think Dr Kieu touched on these—are very important, and it is worth just repeating them very, very quickly. They are about maintaining current practice—that is, ensuring that rental rebates for social housing tenants can be adjusted, continuing to allocate housing to the people who need it most and ensuring that the director of housing can use existing arrangements with Centrelink to collect tenants’ rents. We do know that there is a difference between social housing and private rental, and there are a couple of key features which do differentiate the two models. One is an income-based approach to the setting of rent, not a market-based approach, which is obviously the model in the private sector. This means that social and affordable housing rent is based on the assessment of the renter’s capacity to pay, and that is very, very important. One is a market-driven formula, and the other is based on the renter’s capacity to pay. Then the second aspect is applying the eligibility criteria to prospective renters that are based on housing need, so that available social and affordable housing priorities are leased to the renters who need it most, such as people who are experiencing homelessness or people with disabilities.

I will not go through all of the changes to the amendment to the Retirement Villages Act. Dr Kieu and indeed Mr Ondarchie covered off most of those in their contributions and did so very, very thoroughly, which is why I have focused more on the specialist disability accommodation and the social housing aspects of the amendments to the act, but it is important. The amendments to the Retirement Villages Act are no less important of course. They are very, very important. We know, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, that for older Victorians when they enter into retirement villages it is a significant financial decision, as well as a social decision, that they are making at a very late stage in their life. I think as Mr Ondarchie commented, they have reached the stage where they have contributed through the workforce for many, many years, and this is the opportunity for them to enjoy their retirement in the sun and often in a resort-style environment. But most importantly, what we need to ensure is that their retirement money—that last big decision that they will make—has as much protection as we possibly can give it, and that is what these amendments do.

On that note, again I thank Mr Bourman for the earlier interruption. I thank the house and apologise to the house for my technology getting the better of me, but I do want to commend this, whilst very small, very important bill to the house.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:40): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, and to borrow a phrase from my colleague Mr Quilty, I will be brief—very brief, in fact. As members of Parliament, we frequently learn about the complexities of various policy areas, and a lot of members in both here and the other place have highlighted the situation at the Berkeley Living retirement village. As this is in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan, I have had people very involved with the situation contact my office and provide considerable documentation and meet with people in my office to explain the situation. A complex series of technical and legal requirements have for many years now created significant distress for residents and the families of residents who have passed away. I am pleased that this legislation has made its way to the chamber so that they may finally have some relief. While I will not go over all the details, as they have been well covered by other members, suffice to say that these reforms are overdue and welcome. Some of the affected people do have remaining questions about the legislation, and I will pursue some of these questions in the committee stage of the bill.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (11:41): Brevity is indeed the soul of wit. I am just not sure that that would apply in this particular situation. But thank you, Mr Limbrick, for being so pithy. With the time that I have available to me today, I want to address a number of the contributions of others in this place who have spoken to this particular bill, noting that whilst the size of the bill is small, it is a compact set of amendments. The effect in practical, legal and regulatory terms of these changes is that they will make a significant and obvious difference to some of the most vulnerable groups and communities in Victoria. What it will also do is harmonise a number of the regulatory frameworks which operate in Victoria with those in other jurisdictions and work to better align what is happening in Victoria with federal frameworks, including those which apply under the national disability insurance scheme.

Some of the earlier contributions that we have heard have been used to mount a series of challenges to this government’s commitment to addressing the disadvantage and inequity that are suffered by many vulnerable groups in our communities. It is very, very easy to get on your soapbox from opposition in particular and to bring out anecdotes which show that people in the aged-care sector have struggled, have experienced disadvantage, have had to fend for themselves in a system which should in fact have better checks and balances to prevent issues of self-sufficiency arising in often difficult or precarious situations—very easy. And it is very convenient, for the sake of an emotional contribution in Parliament, to wax lyrical about how in fact this state needs to do better.

When we look, though, at the track record of what has occurred in this state under LNP governments, we see that the coalition—the Liberal-National Party—governments have in fact paid lip service to addressing precisely these inequities. What we have seen in a succession of actions by coalition governments is a refusal, a wilful blindness on the issues of disadvantage and inequity that those opposite have stood up and talked about at length today in passionate and emotional terms. I am not buying the strength of conviction from those opposite. What I am here to do today, though, is to acknowledge and to recognise those groups within our community who have worked tirelessly to identify areas where improvement is not only needed but demanded.

In particular I want to note the numerous meetings that I have had with residents and representatives of residents in the aged-care sector in Eastern Victoria Region around issues which have caused a lot of grief, frustration and confusion at a period in people’s lives where in fact understanding an intricate, complex and often inconsistent system which has a set of state and federal overlays is beyond the ability of many people who experience these systems on a daily basis. In fact the issue of bonds and refundable ingoing contributions is something which has been a battleground for a really long time where people have not been able to secure adequate or immediate assistance with maintenance issues and where people have not been able to understand or to have explained to them adequately or accurately or in a way which accommodates any specific needs which they may have the issues and the terms of contracts which apply in situations where people move into retirement villages and estates that then apply to their financial and decision-making authorities.

The Retirement Villages Act 1986 requires that refundable ingoing contributions be repaid when a resident leaves a retirement village or passes away. These sorts of amendments will, as Mr Erdogan has indicated in his contribution and a series of members have indicated when getting to their feet today, in fact address a number of practical circumstances which have arisen in Patterson Lakes and will in fact address the issue of companies in liquidation in situations where the ingoing contributions have not been repaid and this have led to significant financial distress for those people affected.

We know that in the Patterson Lakes scenario a number of residents were left high and dry following the closure of that particular village in 2017. This is why in fact these changes are necessary. It has been really important in the context of creditors and the way in which we look at secured and unsecured credit within the corporate framework that we can, to the best extent possible, expand the way in which these situations might apply in the aged-care sector. It is a matter of manifest unfairness that aged-care residents until 2017, and by reference to the Patterson Lakes example, have not been able to recover, as secure creditors or an equivalent analogy, the ingoing contributions which were refundable to them save for the liquidation which occurred.

As we know, and as we have heard from other contributions today, there are Supreme Court processes that need to be secured to enforce an order for a first priority charge. That can only in fact occur where there has been an unsuccessful attempt to enforce a judgement debt. This is the case even where that order might be in the interests of all residents affected by the scenario that I have outlined. To remove these obstacles the bill amends the Retirement Villages Act in three important ways, again which have been canvassed extensively by previous speakers. They will mean that the court will be in a position to make orders, provided that they are in the interest of a majority of residents, where the owner or owners of the retirement village land are insolvent; where there is more than one owner of the retirement village land and one or more of these owners are insolvent and the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make the order; or where the ownership of all or part of the retirement village land is vested in ASIC or the commonwealth because that ownership was previously vested in a deregistered company. The capacity for the court to make those orders in the interests of a majority of residents is also complemented by an empowering under this bill of the director of Consumer Affairs Victoria to make an application to the Supreme Court for an order to enforce and also to make a slight change to the order in which proceeds of the sale of retirement village land can be made in the context of selling the land charged and executing the order now ranking first.

So as I indicated in my opening remarks, this harmonises the Victorian framework with that which operates in New South Wales, and it also provides a buffer to some of the inequities that occur far too easily in this sector where it is not a stretch to say that predatory conduct or conduct which tends to exploit the vulnerabilities of this community are rife and need to be cleaned up. We know that the aged care royal commission being undertaken in a federal space has highlighted—and not just by entitling its first report Neglect—a series of qualitative and quantitative deficiencies which show a system in absolute disarray, and these changes contemplated by this bill are a recognition in part of some of those inequities. We are looking forward to the commonwealth also coming on board as it relates to these changes in a space where there is an interface between state and federal regulation of aged care and the retirement village sector and also as it relates to another part of the bill, which I will go to now—that of the national disability insurance scheme—before coming back to residential tenancies and social housing.

So we do know when we look at specialist disability accommodation that it has been necessary to make amendments by inserting new division 9 into part 2 of the act governing the termination of residential rental agreements given that we want to insert provisions in relation to specialist disability accommodation to align those provisions with mainstream tenancy rights and refine some of those provisions to ensure that they operate as originally intended. Again, the driver and the rationale for these changes is to remove obstacles, whether unintended or practical, which have arisen in the application of principles under the current law in Victoria as it relates to the federal framework under the national disability insurance scheme. Commencement of these provisions has been deferred to early 2021 in light of emergency measures introduced as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, and as a result of these deferrals we have seen amendments made under the Disability (National Disability Insurance Scheme Transition) Amendment Act 2019 fail to come into effect. Replicating sections 215 and 216 of the NDIS transition act and inserting new provisions directly into the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 will enable them to commence alongside the remainder of new division 9 of part 2. Again, they are technical amendments, but they have a manifestly practical impact on the way in which Victorians with a disability can access equity of treatment and equity of outcomes and decision-making to a greater extent than they would but for these changes.

The other part of this bill that I want to touch on with the time available to me is the change required to residential tenancies and social housing. Again, it is all too easy for those opposite—and by ‘opposite’ I do not mean the crossbench, for the avoidance of any doubt. The changes proposed and contemplated by this bill are necessary, but they are only one part of a suite of changes that need to be addressed to reduce and to identify and to remove discrimination wherever it may arise in decision-making and to make sure that unintended consequences do not arise in a comparative exercise between the private rental market and social housing. So we want to make sure that rental rebates for social housing renters can be adjusted more than once a year as renters’ incomes change—again something which is not inconsistent with the response and reform to residential tenancies legislation enacted by the Andrews government as a consequence of the pandemic—as well as ensuring social and affordable housing can continue to be allocated to people who need it most, people who are in those positions of vulnerability and people whose needs ought not to be deprioritised because of their circumstances, their locations, their lack of a powerful or well-moneyed voice or their vulnerability. We also need to make sure that the director of housing can use existing automated deduction arrangements with Centrelink to collect rent, again streamlining the processes which individual renters and households in social housing can utilise in order to reduce inconvenience to them and playing catch-up with the rest of the world, where in the private housing market we do see these things offered and implemented as a matter of course with very little complication or mistake or delay.

So we want to make sure that in providing these supports and these harmonisations with the public housing sector and the private rental market we are not just providing greater rental certainty and equity but also addressing some of the key discriminations which are embedded systemically in the way in which the housing sector operates and making sure that we are doing the right thing to understand and address these shortcomings and to practically resolve a systemic set of discriminations over time. Social housing rent and rebates are also another important part of these changes, and amendments will ensure that the amount families pay for social housing continues to accurately reflect household incomes, as per longstanding practice. Again, we need relativities to apply clearly and consistently, and we need those relativities to operate in a way which does not create a disadvantage which would otherwise not apply in the private rental market. These are the comments I have to make in brief. Thank you for the debate on this matter. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:56): I rise to make some brief remarks on the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. This bill is making a number of changes to the legislation that governs retirement villages and residential tenancies. On the former, the bill is clarifying and simplifying the processes for residents to recover their ingoing contributions when a retirement home goes into insolvency. Currently, affected residents have to go through a complicated process involving applying to the Supreme Court, and in practice residents have struggled to recover their ingoing contributions. Given these contributions are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are pleased that these changes will make it easier for the former and will prevent dodgy retirement home owners from ripping off their residents.

We know that there is poor behaviour within our retirement housing sector and that there are issues with the governance of retirement villages, including insufficient safeguards and poor dispute resolution services. I would also like to note the broader review of the Retirement Villages Act 1986 which is still ongoing, and the hope that this review will make a number of recommendations that protect the health, safety and wellbeing of residents in retirement villages. This bill is also amending the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 to reintroduce provisions related to the introduction of the national disability insurance scheme and specialty disability accommodation. These provisions were passed by this Parliament last year and were due to come into effect in July but have since lapsed as the introduction of the new residential tenancies act has been delayed until next year. This bill will reintroduce those provisions into the new act.

The bill is also clarifying that changes to the rental rebate for public or community housing tenants will not breach the rules that limit rent increases to once every 12 months. This is because social housing rents are often fixed as a proportion of a tenant’s income and may scale up or down if that income changes. While the Greens understand the logic behind this amendment, I would also make the comment that it is so important that we protect the proportionality of rent to income in public and community housing.

Finally, I want to note clause 5 of the bill. This clause is amending section 30A of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018. Section 30A states that a residential rental provider cannot unlawfully discriminate against another person by refusing to let rental premises. Clause 5 of the bill amends that section to exempt the director of housing and community housing providers from being in breach of the section in certain circumstances. The intention of this provision is to allow the director of housing and housing associations to set rules for allocating housing that are based on need. This is an important clarification to the law which may otherwise have prevented positive discrimination in the provision of public and community housing. After consultation with stakeholders we had concerns that the drafting of the new provisions may have allowed broader discriminatory actions. We have sought clarification from the minister’s office, and I want to thank the minister for providing us with additional information and clarification. We wanted to double-check and triple-check that these provisions did not inadvertently allow the housing director or housing associations the freedom to more broadly discriminate against potential residents on the basis of their attributes.

The point of public housing is that it needs to be available to anyone. Unfortunately that is not the case in Victoria because we have a massive shortfall of public housing, so we need to be absolutely sure that public and community housing are not able to discriminate in favour of some tenants over others, except the acknowledged positive discrimination provided for in the bill. When we are in a housing crisis we need to ensure that everybody is able to access a safe and secure home, not potentially make it harder for people to access that housing by giving the sector even more ability to pick and choose tenants as they wish. Our equal opportunity laws are such an important piece of legislation and protect Victorians from discrimination and abuse. The Greens do not want to see them weakened or watered down by creating an extra loophole for some organisations. With the minister’s confirmation that the bill will not allow discrimination in the offering of housing by community housing providers except in line with the director of housing’s determinations, we are pleased to support this bill.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

COVID-19

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, I refer to the impact of the government’s harsh COVID-19 restrictions on small businesses, including stand-up comics and the venues on which they rely, such as the Comic’s Lounge, which hosts a wide range of stand-up comics. The government’s rigid rules limit patron numbers to 20, despite the venue having a normal capacity of 500. Minister, isn’t it a fact that the government’s rigid rules effectively mean this type of venue is slammed shut and remains shut? And there is no joke about that.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:01): I thank Mr Davis for his question and congratulate him on trying to introduce some levity into the place this afternoon. But this is a very serious matter and it is a serious question. As members are well aware, there are a great many businesses that have been able to open now that Melbourne has entered into the third step in the road map to reopening. There are some very significant sectors and there are still a number of industries and types of businesses that continue to be impacted in either the restricted or the heavily restricted category. I reflect on some of the contributions members made in the adjournment debate last night—Ms Bath, Mr O’Donohue and Dr Cumming as well—with particular issues around people who are still waiting for their sector either to be provided with some greater clarity or to be able to operate.

Obviously it is a matter of individual choice for a business operator as to whether they choose to open, given their own assessment of the impact of the restrictions on them. Members will have seen perhaps over the last couple of days that there are some hospitality places and some retail places that have chosen to open and there are others that have not. Some will wait that next couple of weeks until their capacity increases after 8 November, and there will be others that will still be making assessments about when is the best time for them to open. Indeed Mr Atkinson’s question to me in the last sitting week went to the question of some businesses where the very nature of their work is very seasonal, and some of them have missed their season entirely, depending on what they do. So it is a matter of choice for individual businesses.

Our approach to the restrictions, as members are well aware, has always been guided by the advice of the public health team. Victorians have done an extraordinary job in flattening that curve that represented Victoria’s second wave. Now, we will continue to work with and support businesses that remain restricted and heavily restricted and to provide certainty and clarity for those that cannot open. It is true to say that there are some settings that still present a really challenging public health risk, and members may have seen— (Time expired)

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): I thank the minister for her response. It is a very serious matter, because Mr Tony O’Sullivan, the proprietor of the Comic’s Lounge—and I have met with him—has said that it is unviable but he is very prepared to work with government to find a way with proper social distancing in his large venue to safely reopen with much greater numbers of patrons. This is also important because of the neighbouring small businesses, the shops and restaurants in North Melbourne, which is where the Comic’s Lounge is situated. I therefore ask: are you prepared to meet with Mr O’Sullivan at the Comic’s Lounge to work out a way to save his small business and allow him to provide work to the many stand-up comics whose livelihood is dependent on venues such as this to operate?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:05): Yes, I am. I am starting to think that Mr Davis is trying to do over my executive assistant for her job, and that is not happening. But, yes, of course, I am happy to. You have done this five times now. Really! And I think in every instance you have used question time to book meetings when you have not bothered to pick up the phone, send me a text or call the office, and indeed oftentimes it is on behalf of organisations that have not sought to make a representation. Now, as a local member, as a member of the opposition, it is your right to use question time how you would like, and if you choose to help my EA to perform her role, then I guess that is your business. But you are slightly ridiculous. I am very happy to meet with the organisation.

Horseracing

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:06): My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Racing. Minister, tens of millions of dollars in subsidies have been given to the racing industry this last year and every year. During this pandemic racing has been given special privilege to continue operations unchanged. While medical operations were delayed, hospitality and tourism were shut down and restrictions were applied to weddings and funerals, the racing industry could still move horses and people across the state in order to support the gambling industry. Some industries were shut down and deservedly received compensation. Some industries were not shut down. Racing, almost uniquely, was not shut down and yet still received compensation. This industry, replete with billionaires, continuing to derive enormous income from gambling during this period, still somehow deserves $16.6 million of public money to subsidise its operations. Minister, what is so special about this horse-killing industry that it requires continual taxpayer subsidy in order to operate?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:07): I thank Mr Meddick for his question about the racing industry to the racing minister, and I will seek a written response in accordance with our standing orders.

Ministers statements: Health and Safety Month

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:08): I rise to update the house on WorkSafe’s activities highlighting the importance of workplace safety during Health and Safety Month. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has made it necessary for public health restrictions, and that has significantly impacted our day-to-day life, including the way we work. Throughout the month of October WorkSafe has hosted free online seminars to help employers and workers maintain safe and healthy workplaces during this challenging period and beyond. The sessions have covered topics such as leadership, working from home and looking after injured workers and have provided a valuable opportunity to hear from experts from government and industry on a range of COVID-19-related issues.

As Health and Safety Month draws to a close, I would like to take a moment to thank our health and safety representatives for the incredible work that they have done and continue to do throughout this pandemic. Finally, I also want to thank all Victorian businesses that are doing all they can to keep their staff safe at this time, implementing strict protocols and measures as we embark on our cautious reopening in a COVID-safe way.

WorkCover claims management

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:09): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, what are your top three portfolio priorities for the next 12 months?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:09): Thank you for your question, Mr Rich-Phillips. I can assure you that my commitment to workplace safety does run deep and there are a number of priorities that the government has in the workplace safety space. Of course you would be aware of the challenges that the increases in mental injuries present in terms of getting workers back to work. The Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System gives us a unique opportunity to look at the way in which mental health not only impacts the community but also impacts workers, so one of my key focuses will be to ensure that we are doing everything we can to find ways to ensure that those workers who experience mental injury in the workplace have pathways back to meaningful work. That is a significant challenge and a significant priority for this government. There are a range of reforms that the government is pursuing around provisional payments for workers who are the subject of mental injury. You would be aware that there are pilots going on with some of our frontline workforces at the moment.

In relation to the importance of making sure that safety remains a priority during the pandemic, that has obviously been a significant focus for WorkSafe as the independent regulator. I know that they are doing a lot of work to ensure that health and safety and mitigating risks against injury are enhanced during this time, during the pandemic. Despite the focus on the pandemic, unfortunately we have already had 59 workers lose their lives this year alone. That is a tragedy for those 59 families who are grieving the loss of those workers, so I do think it is important that the government had taken the step to introduce and pass groundbreaking legislation around industrial manslaughter.

In addition to that, we have also announced that families of victims of workplace fatalities and serious injuries will inform our work going forward about how we manage critical incidents in the workplace, so I am looking forward to that committee being formed and doing important work to make sure that the voices of injured workers’ families are heard, because one fatality is too many, Mr Rich-Phillips.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:13): Minister, thank you for your response; I note it did not go to three priorities. Minister, the annual report for WorkCover, which was released today, shows that actuarial release has deteriorated significantly in the last 12 months to negative $2 billion. As you know, actuarial release is a measure of how well the claims are being managed. Why is that not a priority, restoring that claims management?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:13): Thank you for your supplementary question. I can indicate that, yes, the annual report has been released today, and obviously for many organisations across the community, including WorkSafe, it has been a difficult year. The workers compensation scheme remains in a sound financial position. Despite the shocks and the impact that COVID-19 has had on the scheme, the insurance funding ratio is 123 per cent. That is still within the range and means that for every $100 of liabilities WorkSafe has $123 in assets, so it is within the required range. You would know there is a lot of work going on in relation to implementing the recommendations of the inquiry into complex claims, so there will be work being undertaken— (Time expired)

V/Line

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:14): My question is to the minister representing the minister for police. Corruption of V/Line is in the news again as IBAC probes allegations that Transclean uses bribes to secure V/Line contracts. As anyone from northern Victoria would know, the quality of service received from V/Line is abysmal. Trains are routinely late and often cancelled or replaced by buses, although I have had no comments about the cleaning. This is not the first time V/Line has been called before IBAC for dodgy practices. In 2017 IBAC criticised their hiring and procurement practices and noted they did not properly manage conflicts of interest. Instead of cleaning up shop, this government’s pick to head up V/Line seems to have been rolling in the mud. What many might not know is that a Transclean subsidiary has also held security contracts with Yarra Trams since 2010 and that Transclean has been reported to the licensing and regulation division numerous times. Victorians deserve better than the dysfunction that brown paper bag deals have brought them. My question is: how many adverse reports have been received by LRD about Transclean, and were any of them upheld?

The PRESIDENT: Can you repeat your question, please, Mr Quilty?

Mr QUILTY: How many adverse reports have been received by LRD about Transclean and were any of them upheld? It is to the minister for police. It is about the security company.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Quilty, I think you should address your question to the Attorney-General.

Mr QUILTY: I believe it should be the minister for police, but if you want we will send it to the Attorney-General then.

The PRESIDENT: The advice I have got is that it is an integrity issue. I call Minister Tierney to explain.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:17): In terms of the question, Mr Quilty, I will seek advice as to who the relevant minister is. I think it will either be the minister for police or the Attorney-General. Regardless, you will receive a reply consistent with the standing orders.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:17): The name James Pinder is a storied one in the rather niche area of railway corruption. Before V/Line’s James Pinder, there was a James Pinder who was found in 1914 to have bribed members of Parliament to secure subsidies for his railway operations. I digress, but it is an interesting piece of trivia. I have found no record of Transclean’s security contracts with Yarra Trams being retendered in the last 10 years, which is interesting. I have also been told that at least two Transclean directors have ALP links; we might explore that at a later date. I understand Transclean’s security licence is due to expire on 3 November this year. Given the clear evidence of Transclean’s involvement in corruption that IBAC has revealed and the damage that poor regulation of the security industry has wrought in the state this year, I wonder how they could possibly be found to be fit and proper, as the act requires. Will the minister commit to not renewing Transclean’s security licence unless IBAC clears them of bribery?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:18): Consistent with my response to the substantive, I will seek a response from the relevant minister.

Ministers statements: local government elections

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:18): Today I would like to give the house an update on the recent update I gave about the 2020 council elections. Everyone knows voting for elections has now closed. A record 2186 candidates contested 622 seats, making it the biggest election yet.

Ms Crozier interjected.

Mr LEANE: But it gets better, Ms Crozier, because while the Victorian Electoral Commission are still waiting for ballots to arrive—there are two more days—there have already been over 3 million ballots returned. That is a 79 per cent overall return rate. That is 9 per cent greater than in 2016—9 per cent, and there are two days to go. I am pumped. So far 68 of the 75 councils have received more than a 75 per cent return of ballots, and 16 councils—16 of them—have 85 per cent. Melbourne City Council is sitting at 65 per cent. Now, that does not sound that great, but in 2016 it was only 55 per cent—two days to go. Warrnambool City Council has had the greatest return, Mrs McArthur, with 87 per cent, and I think we both know why that is so good. The VEC have assured me that they are on track to make the declarations of the elections by 13 November, and once again I would like to say I look forward to working with all the new councillors to enrich the great state of Victoria.

COVID-19

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:20): My question is also to the Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, new regulations introduced by your government compel employers to notify WorkSafe within 48 hours of becoming aware that an employee, an independent contractor or an employee of an independent contractor has attended their workplace while positive with COVID-19. Minister, what obligations has your government imposed on those employees, independent contractors or employees of independent contractors who knowingly attend a workplace while positive with COVID-19?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:21): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. As we have discussed a number of times in the house this week, timely notifications of workplace transmission of COVID-19 are absolutely critical in terms of prompt investigation and potential breaches of health and safety laws. For that reason you are correct that employers are required to notify WorkSafe immediately on becoming aware that an employee or an independent contractor or an independent contractor’s employee has received a COVID-19 diagnosis and has attended the workplace during the infectious period. You would also be aware, Mr O’Donohue, that matters regarding the chief health officer’s (CHO) directions do not sit in my portfolio and are matters more appropriately directed to the Minister for Health.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:22): I note your answer, Minister, and the particular point you made that timely notification is critical. In that context, given the importance of preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace, why are employees not legally required to immediately notify their employers if they have contracted COVID-19 and attended their workplace?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:23): Thank you, Mr O’Donohue, for your supplementary question. I think that I actually answered the question in the answer I gave to the substantive question. There is an obligation on employers to notify of any breaches or to notify of any COVID-19-positive cases. However, as I stated in the substantive answer, this is a matter for the Minister for Health because it directly relates to directions from the CHO.

Timber industry

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:23): My question is to the minister for forestry. In January this year Victoria’s forests in East Gippsland were decimated by the worst fires in that region’s history. Seventy per cent of the area’s forests burnt, and 244 endangered species lost 50 per cent of their habitat. Yet despite this catastrophic event, VicForests, the state-owned logging company, continues to log East Gippsland as if nothing has changed. Given the federal court case finding in May of widespread illegal logging of threatened species’ habitat by VicForests, why has VicForests not stopped logging East Gippsland’s last remaining unburnt forest habitat, like in the Cottonwood range, as a precautionary measure to avoid the potential for future court findings of illegal logging?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:24): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question, although there are a lot of contentions in there that are inaccurate. Post the bushfires it is not true to say that VicForests are logging as though nothing has changed. In fact it is the complete opposite. They are working with the Office of the Conservation Regulator to assess whether fire-impacted forest is suitable to conduct harvesting in or not. I would also say that I commend our forest harvesters for the hard work they have done in helping us respond to and recover from the bushfires in relation to salvage logging and reducing the number of dangerous trees on roadsides and the like.

There were a few questions in your question. In relation to legal action, it would not be appropriate for me to give a commentary of legal action that has been brought to the courts by anti-logging agencies, because that is ongoing. But what I would say is that there is a good relationship between the departments that manage our forests, and therefore we work in collaboration with the Office of the Conservation Regulator. My expectations are that VicForests undertake all of their logging activities legally, and because of the working together I am confident that that occurs.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:26): Thank you, Minister. I beg to differ that VicForests have taken the actions necessary in the aftermath of the fires. For example, in January this year in the aftermath of those fires that ripped through East Gippsland’s forests the Andrews government committed to $17.5 million in urgent funding to help some of the worst impacted threatened species. One of these was the large brown tree frog, a species that lost 88 per cent of its habitat over the summer. But less than 12 months later VicForests is logging less than 200 metres from the site of this critically endangered frog. How can you justify this action by VicForests?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:26): Dr Ratnam, the operations of VicForests are subject to strict regulatory requirements. In relation to protecting endangered species there are appropriate protection zones put around any habitats that are identified, and as I said, they work with the Office of the Conservation Regulator to ensure that safe practices and appropriate practices are in place to continue the work that they do. On that, it is incumbent to be able to support an industry while we are transitioning. I know that there are different views in this chamber about the speed of transition or whether that transition occurs at all, but working together as we step out of native timber logging is something that I am committed to doing. VicForests are committed to supporting the jobs in country regions that rely heavily on this industry. They conduct their operations appropriately, and we will continue to monitor that and continue to hold them accountable for those actions.

Ministers statements: Learn Local Awards

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:27): This week I announced the Learn Local Awards finalists for 2020, and it was great to make this announcement with the member for Lara, John Eren, at the Rosewall Neighbourhood Centre, which is a finalist in the Volunteer Team Award. Rosewall have been nominated for their English conversation and sewing group. It is a wonderful program where volunteers create a safe, welcoming environment for residents, many from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Rosewall is among so many wonderful providers who are finalists. These include Heyfield Community Resource Centre for their Kick Start Your Career in the Health Industry program. I know that parliamentary secretary Mr Cesar Melhem celebrated with them earlier this week, and I thank him for that. Sandybeach Centre has been nominated for the Pre-accredited Pathway Program Award for their mentoring initiative supporting adults with a disability to find employment. Yet again Kew Neighbourhood Learning Centre is a finalist for their partnership with Burke and Beyond, also providing life-changing training for Victorians with a disability. And Zoe Support Australia is nominated for the Volunteer Team Award for their programs that target young, disadvantaged mothers in the Sunraysia community.

In addition to providers, we have some really inspiring finalists for the Ro Allen Award for learner excellence. Colleen Forbes is an Indigenous woman of the Kurnai clan, and she is enrolled in the hospitality and retail course at Community College Gippsland. Her confidence has significantly grown, and she is now working at Woolworths. Colleen is also now working towards her long-term goal of becoming a Koori educator and advocate. Congratulations to all finalists.

Murray Basin rail project

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:29): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Regional Development. Minister, you will be very familiar with the great significance of the Murray Basin rail project to support the movement of agricultural goods from Victoria’s north-west to the city and ports. This once-in-a-generation project was to revitalise and standardise Victoria’s rail freight network and should—I say and the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) certainly says—have been delivered as planned back in 2015. The Andrews Labor government recently released a revised business case summary, which has significant redactions and is therefore unable to be assessed in full for viability, completeness and cost-effectiveness. I therefore ask: will the minister act to advocate for and insist upon the release of the full revised Murray Basin rail project business case?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:30): I thank Mr Davis for his question. It is an important issue, the Murray Basin rail project, and obviously it is a frustrating situation that we find ourselves in with a project that was not funded by the previous government despite their assurances to the contrary and a business case that had to be revised. What we have recently released are details of the business case review, which would provide a way to get on with this project.

The proposed package of works requires an additional $244 million, taking the overall investment in this project to more than $800 million. What we have on the table is the Victorian government committing to $48.8 million and asking for $195 million from the commonwealth, and we were very disappointed that the federal budget did not have this contained in it. We will continue to work with the federal government in relation to this. Obviously this is a matter for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, but she is continuing her conversations with the Deputy Prime Minister in regard to this.

In relation to the business case, details have been released. Releasing a business case has never been a condition of funding from the federal government. We will continue to talk to stakeholders, provide briefings and provide further information on the material that is released so that we can continue to advocate for the further stages of this important project.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:32): So you will not insist on the release of the full business case; that is what the answer to that is. I ask you, Minister: VFF grains group president Ashley Fraser and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack have both called for the release of the full revised business case. Mr Fraser has indicated that in withholding the business case the government risks condemning the project to years of further delays and setbacks. Mr Fraser has said, ‘The ball is in the court of Minister Allan and the Victorian government’. Minister, when will the revised business case be released?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:32): I thank Mr Davis for his supplementary question. It is not a question that I can directly answer, because I do not have responsibility for the portfolio that has the business case, so I cannot provide you with a detailed answer on that. But I would refer back to the answer to your substantive question. The federal government has never required the release of a business case to fund a project before. We were very disappointed that there was no funding in the federal budget for this project. We have asked for a fairer ratio of investment from the federal government. The revised parts of the business case that are public would demonstrate quite clearly the investment that can be made to get this project moving, and I would urge those opposite to lobby their federal counterparts for investment in this important project for our farmers in that part of Victoria.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:33): I move:

That the minister’s answers be considered on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Corrections system

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:34): My question is to the minister representing the Attorney-General. It follows last week’s sentencing of double murderer Ross Konidaris for a new crime spree he committed in 2019 while he was granted unsupervised leave from Thomas Embling Hospital. The news that someone as dangerous as Konidaris should be on unsupervised leave of any kind has understandably horrified many people in the community, including relatives of the two people he killed in 2012. It has also prompted considerable concern from the Victorian victims of crime commissioner, Fiona McCormack. Minister, in light of these developments I ask: what data is kept by the government and its agencies about how many individuals are being released on unsupervised leave from Thomas Embling Hospital, and where can the Victorian public view this data?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:35): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question, and obviously I will refer the matter to the Attorney-General for a response.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:35): Thank you, Minister, for referring that on. The Attorney-General was reported last week as saying the supervision and management of those at Thomas Embling Hospital would be improved by the changes in the government’s Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Amendment Bill 2020. We know that bill is at least three weeks away from being passed here. Even if it is passed, there will also presumably be a further transition period before it would take practical effect. My question therefore is: what actions, if any, will be taken by the government in the interim to urgently ensure there are no further instances of highly dangerous criminals being allowed leave, especially unsupervised leave, from Thomas Embling Hospital?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:35): Again I thank Ms Maxwell for her supplementary question, and I will refer the matter to the Attorney-General.

Ministers statements: COVID-19

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:36): I am delighted to update the house on measures the Andrews government is taking to reopen our hospitality sector to as many Victorians as possible while maintaining public health and safety. In Melbourne, as members are aware, venues can now seat up to 10 people per discrete indoor space, with a maximum of 20 people per venue indoors, with a density quotient of one person per 4 square metres. Up to 50 people can be seated outdoors, with a density quotient of one person per 2 square metres. On 8 November those limits will increase to 40 indoors and 70 outdoors. In regional Victoria the 40- and 70-person limits that will soon apply to Melbourne already apply.

While hospitality businesses are reopening, a range of restrictions and safety measures remain in place. I would like to take the opportunity today, though, to advise the house that the hospitality guidelines will now allow temporary as well as permanent structures to separate indoor spaces as long as those structures are at least 2.1 metres high. This is a great outcome for the sector, allowing more businesses to open to more customers. It is the result of intensive consultation between our government and industry leaders, and this consultation will continue as we work towards and through our COVID-normal summer.

I take this opportunity to remind all Victorians that fitted face masks are still mandatory when you visit your local pub, cafe or restaurant, but they can be removed when customers are seated. They must be worn at all other times. This is an exciting time for our state and a reward for the resilience and sacrifice of business owners and patrons alike. They have well and truly earned the right to a successful opening but also really strong support from patrons that have missed their work and their passion for what they do so very much.

Written responses

Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, I am just wondering if the Leader of the Government can provide an explanation as to why she has not provided a response to the two questions that I asked in question time yesterday to which you directed her to provide an answer for me today, which I have not received.

Ms Symes: I can. I asked for it as I was walking out. We were just having some printer issues, but it is done, so you will have it imminently.

The PRESIDENT (12:38): Regarding questions today, Mr Meddick to Minister Pulford, two days. Mr Quilty, after checking the question and the supplementary, it is the minister for police, two days, both the question and the supplementary. Ms Maxwell, two days for the question and the supplementary.

Mr O’Donohue: On a point of order, President, Ms Stitt, in the substantive answer to my question, actually answered the question. So she answered the question, spent a minute or so answering the question, and then tried to say it is not her responsibility. In the supplementary she said it is not her responsibility. I submit to you, President, you cannot have it both ways. She has chosen to answer the question; she therefore is obligated to answer the supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: You know very well, Mr O’Donohue, that I cannot advise the minister on how she should answer, but I will call the minister.

Ms Stitt: In response to Mr O’Donohue’s point of order, he does not get to use the standing orders to reinstate questions to me that I have clearly answered. The question that he asked I pointed out to him was not even within my portfolio responsibilities; it is the Minister for Health.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to look at Hansard and get back to you, but personally I believe the minister has answered directly on that issue.

Mr O’Donohue: President, I thank you for agreeing to review Hansard. If I may just make one supplementary comment, the minister answered the substantive question and it related specifically to the workplace, for which she has responsibility. The supplementary question related specifically to the workplace environment, for which she has responsibility.

Ms Stitt: In response to Mr O’Donohue, he does not get to reinstate the question because my answer does not fit his political narrative.

The PRESIDENT: I said I would check Hansard and get back to you. I do not want to keep talking about it.

Constituency questions

Northern Victoria Region

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:41): My question is for the Premier, and it is on behalf of the Mildura Motorcycle Club. Motorsport is one of the Mildura region’s greatest tourism income earners and is also a strongly supported community activity. Motorsport is a non-contact sport with large wide-open spaces for people to socially distance and to be able to comply with all COVID-safe distancing rules quite easily. However, it is not viable without spectators. The Olympic Park speedway in Mildura has a very large viewing area of around 11 500 square metres, which would easily accommodate the usual crowds of around 700 to 1000 people that attend the events. The Mildura Motorcycle Club has been working closely with the Mildura Rural City Council and their COVID officers. They have developed a COVID-safe plan. The only factor missing from the plan is the ratio of people allowed in an open-air stadium. Will the Premier please provide clear rules around the holding of motorsport events and activities, including spectator attendance, at the Olympic Park speedway in Mildura?

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:43): My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. On 8 February 2018 Minister Allan told Parliament the government would work closely with Ouyen Inc. and the Ouyen community capitalising on the benefits of the Murray Basin rail project to aid the delivery of the vital Ouyen intermodal. However, I understand the minister has not met with Ouyen Inc. in the nearly three years since then, and last week the Victorian government said it is now only prepared to devote another $44 million to the Murray Basin rail project, notwithstanding that hundreds of millions of dollars are needed even for partial completion. I therefore ask: what will the minister be doing to honour her 2018 commitments to Ouyen and to Ouyen Inc. given they will now be severely adversely affected without full completion of the Murray Basin rail project?

Western Metropolitan Region

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:44): My constituency question is to the Premier. Hotels have always held a very special place in the life of Melbourne’s west. It is tragic to see the impact the Premier’s lockdown has had on some of the most historic pubs in Victoria, many in the western suburbs. The hotels that have not opened cannot make any money under the current restrictions and have opted to stay shut. The longer this partial lockdown continues, the greater the chance more hotels will never again open their doors. Premier, it is abundantly clear that far more than the chief health officer’s advice decides what is restricted and what is not. Will the Premier take into consideration the financial viability of western suburban pubs in his decision-making process?

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:45): My constituency question is to the Minister for Small Business and is from the owner, Mr Michael Smith, of the Sun Theatre in Yarraville. What financial support will be offered to cinemas and when will they be able to reopen? They have been closed since March, with a short reopening in July. To reopen they have to put a lot of work into COVID-safe practices, spending thousands on equipment—QR code scanners at cinema entries—as well as multiple hand sanitation stations, signage and ticketing software to allow distancing. The audiences face the screen. They do not move around. They can wear masks and they can social distance. Restaurants are open and patrons do not wear masks as they eat and interact with staff. Aircraft operate with no distancing measures. Assistance has been given to aviation, hospitality, tourism and licensed venues, but cinemas have been unable to access any of this support.

Eastern Victoria Region

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:46): My constituency question is for the Premier, and it relates to inconsistencies in the COVID rules for Eastern Victoria Region. The Premier has dictated, and rightly so, that we can have 10 people in indoor recreation spaces with 20 in the whole facility, 20 in indoor non-contact, 20 in churches—I would like to see that expand to a room size ratio—but men’s sheds, the CWA, Girl Guides, Scouts, craft clubs and even the Morwell gem club still cannot meet. These people are desperate to come back together. They have been locked away from each other for months. They can apply strict COVID-safe plans and rules to the nth degree, but they are absolutely desperate to meet. Will the Premier relax these exclusions and allow the community groups to meet again?

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:47): My question is for the Minister for the Coordination of Jobs, Precincts and Regions–COVID-19 A constituent has contacted me upset that cinemas are being left out of the road map, uncertain when they will be able to open again. For this constituent, going to the Village Cinema in Cranbourne with their family was a weekly ritual. I went there many times myself when I was a child. This industry employs thousands of employees who have been stood down for the better part of this year. Around the world and within Australia no confirmed cases have been linked to cinema operations. This is despite cinemas in other states of Australia being operational since late June 2020. With a comprehensive COVID-19 safe plan, socially distanced seating, good ventilation systems, capacity limitations, constant cleaning, online contact tracing through ticket sales, cashless payment options and mask wearing, it seems as though cinemas pose little risk of transmission of the virus. So my question to the minister is: when will you allow cinemas to operate again, noting that they pose little risk of COVID-19 transmission?

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:48): My constituency question is for the Premier. Gyms in my electorate have been allowed to reopen, although with strict limits of 20 people or 10 per space subject to a one person per 8-square-metres rule. This is unviable for many gyms. On top of that, gym users are expected to wear face masks when weightlifting and stretching. Co-owner of Momentum Fitness in Warrnambool, Kris Sudale, told the Warrnambool Standard, ‘We shouldn’t have to wear masks while in a gym situation. You are exercising, and masks normally aren’t worn when doing heavy exercise’. Gyms provide vital physical and mental health benefits, and these government diktats are ridiculous. Premier, when will these restrictions on gyms in Western Victoria be repealed?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:49): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Minister, I have been contacted by a resident in Brighton who wants to purchase a solar battery system for his home and has been advised that postcode 3186 is not eligible for solar batteries. He has great solar access. When we research online it states in regard to postcode eligibility ‘the battery program targets designated postcodes with high solar penetration and population growth’. He has questioned why he is not eligible. It seems strange that the postcode of Doncaster is not eligible but the neighbouring suburb of Templestowe is eligible and that Glen Eira, one of the biggest growth areas, has no eligibility. My question is: when governments seek to reduce CO₂ emissions, is not a simple method of encouraging solar power systems best if available to all regardless of postcode? Would not a better solution be a comprehensive statewide solar battery rebate?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:50): My matter is for the Minister for Health. It concerns orders that are issued under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, and it concerns particularly a constituent of mine, a fitness group—Yes Fitness—on the Nepean Highway going south in my electorate. In fact they are in Brighton at 237 Nepean Highway. They have been issued with a massive fine of $9913. This is a fine that has been put in place; it was rescinded but reinstated. They are alleged to have been operating their fitness group at a time when there was a restriction, but in fact what they were doing was actually preparing with their fitness people to get the place in order for reopening. I ask that some review occur of the fine.

Ms Maxwell: On a point of order, President, I would like to refer you to standing order 8.08(4). As you will know, it says that answers to constituency questions must be given to the Clerk in writing within 14 days of the question being asked. On that basis, President, I would like to draw your attention, for the purpose of following it up, please, to a constituency question that I asked the Attorney-General on 23 April about a sex offender in Beechworth. This has still not received a response even though it was asked 176 days ago.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Thank you for raising the point of order, Ms Maxwell. It is true it is in the standing orders, but there is no further power for me. You have already asked, and the 14 days have passed, but I will call Minister Leane if he wants to make a comment.

Mr Leane: On the point of order, President, I am happy to personally get my office to follow up this outstanding constituency question with the Attorney-General’s office.

Southern Metropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:54): It is an important issue that I would like to raise with the Minister for Health. It is around breast screening and in relation to COVID. As we know, it has had an impact for many, many people, but alarmingly the Department of Health and Human Services report that was released today states there has been a decrease from 267 000 to 218 129 screenings that have taken place. So it is a massive drop of 18.3 per cent, and I do think that there is a lot of cancer screening that has not taken place during not only these last few months from July in this new financial year but in the last few months of the last financial year. It is very concerning that these numbers were rising pre COVID, and I am very concerned about the potential that many people have missed out. My question to the minister is: what will he do to ensure that all Victorians get the screening processes that they require?

Mr Finn: On a point of order, President, as you would be aware, the sitting list provides for us to sit again on 17 November. My understanding is that in the other place the Premier has risen to his full height and announced that in fact they will be returning on the 10th. There seems to be some degree of confusion—to understate things—as to what is happening with regard to our sitting timetable. I am just seeking some clarification from your good self as to exactly what the hell is going on, because nobody seems to know.

The PRESIDENT: Order! As you well know, Mr Finn, I have nothing to do with the Legislative Assembly, what they do there and when they sit. It is up to the minister in this house to move when the sitting dates are.

Bills

Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:56): I rise to make a contribution in support of the Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, and I have had the benefit of listening to many contributions of my colleagues on the government benches and others today in terms of what is proposed in regard to these amendments. They are important and significant amendments in a range of ways, and I must say that one of the first representations I had from a section of my community when I was elected was from a person who has a keen interest in retirement villages. So I have had lots of engagement on retirement villages, and I am quite well acquainted with some of the challenges that exist for people in this sector. I must say I enjoyed taking the former minister for consumer affairs, the Honourable Marlene Kairouz, to visit a retirement village in my region. What was of interest to both me and the minister was that this was a retirement village that was actually run as a not-for-profit entity and was built by a community housing association. Whilst we know there are for-profit models that run retirement villages not only in Victoria but around Australia, it was good to see a not-for-profit model managed by residents themselves. It was really good to see that.

As we know, there are some intricacies and complexities that exist in regard to the way that the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 operates. There is also the Retirement Villages Act 1986. I will just start here and follow up on the contributions of my colleagues. One of the amendments that I will quickly speak to now is about assisting retirement village residents and their estates to recover unpaid ingoing contributions. Of course if someone was to die and they are unable to recover any unpaid ingoing contributions, then that rightfully should come back to their estate effectively. That is something that can be amended by this bill.

It would have been no doubt very difficult and emotionally challenging for people to have to deal with that on the passing of an elderly relative, and then to try and unpick that or navigate those legal challenges would be quite unwelcome and an unnecessary burden to have to bear. These amendments will directly benefit former residents of Berkeley Living, a Patterson Lakes retirement village which is now in liquidation. The government is aware that a substantial number of former residents and their family members are owed refundable ingoing contributions following that village’s closure in late 2017. The residents were unable to recover their ingoing contributions due to the complex ownership structure of Berkeley Living and the existing requirements of the Retirement Villages Act. These amendments will amend those provisions to ensure that they remove obstacles and provide a streamlined approach to the enforcement of statutory charges as well. The amendments are broadly modelled on the approach that is taken in New South Wales.

These amendments are obviously in the interests of the majority of residents. Of course consumer protection is something that is critical in this legislation as well, and it is good to see the harmonisation of those arrangements. And of course the changes will mean that courts will now be able to make orders provided that it is in the interests of the majority of residents—for example, if the owner or owners of retirement village land are insolvent or where there is more than one owner of the retirement village land or more of those owners are insolvent and the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make an order, or the ownership of all or part of the village land is vested in ASIC or the commonwealth because that ownership was previously vested in a deregistered company. So again, it is just removing some legal technicalities around recovery of moneys and also the legal entity structure of those corporations that own and operate retirement villages.

As I said, this mirrors the New South Wales approach and it is consistent with a practice called the ‘salvage principle’ in that a person who creates a fund is entitled to recover their own costs and expenses from the fund. That is an important and necessary change. As I said, nobody wants to have to deal with those complexities on the loss of an elderly relative. Certainly if you are an executor of an estate, I am sure that would be something that you just do not need to have to resolve.

The other important amendment is around the Residential Tenancies Act in regard to social housing. There are over 80 000 households in public or community housing in Victoria where the rents are set not by the market but with reference to household income and what these households can afford to pay without being pushed into poverty. It is critically important that we are able to streamline legislation to ensure that people who need access to social housing are able to get that. The previous amendments effectively landed some unintended consequences, I guess you could say, and they do not reflect the differences between the private rental market and social housing clearly.

The amendments that we are proposing do three key things, and these will ensure that social housing can continue to operate in the way that it was intended to. One, they will ensure that rental rebates for social housing renters can be adjusted more than once a year as the renters’ incomes change. Sometimes when you are in these villages you are getting assistance for social housing. When occupancy rates change—people may come and go—if you are on a fixed income and you are subject to fluctuating costs, it makes it very, very difficult to continue to budget under those circumstances. These amendments will enable the rebate that they get for social housing to be adjusted more than once a year, particularly if their incomes change as well. That is obviously appropriate and necessary.

Another key element of these changes is to ensure the social and affordable housing sector can continue to allocate housing to people who need it the most. Of course this is about positively discriminating in favour of people who are most needy and it is a very important principle of equity and access. We have all seen images of a small person standing on a box at a fence next to a very tall person. Of course this is what equity does: it lifts people up and provides equity of access to things that they may not ordinarily have by virtue of them suffering some level of disability, or they are unable to access things in the same way that any other ordinary person would or is able to. This will ensure that the people who need access to social housing the most will be able to access it.

Thirdly and importantly, it will enable the director of housing to use an automatic deduction arrangement with Centrelink to collect rent. That is interesting to me. I do not know why it was not able to happen just in the ordinary course of events, but of course obviously it was tried and deemed not able to operate. The changes will enable the automatic deduction of rents to occur with Centrelink. So Centrelink will in effect be able to collect those rents and distribute them on behalf of those tenants if they need it to. Again, the changes will help support greater rental certainty and equity for Victoria’s most vulnerable renters, especially those relying on commonwealth benefits.

So just on the social housing and rent rebates, as I said, there is a rent model that is particular to the social housing sector and applies to 76 000 of the 84 000 households in social housing in Victoria, so by any stretch of the imagination it is a very large proportion and a great majority of households that the rent model applies to. As most of these households rely on commonwealth benefits, the rent that they pay is set between 25 and 30 per cent of their household income, not the amount the property would command on the open market. As I said, these are measures to ensure that people have access to housing if they are on a fixed income or a low income. It is important that they be able to access housing. Under this model the discounted rents that apply are known as ‘rebated rent’, and the renters receive a rebate or discount on the price a property would otherwise command on the open market. The model has a profound difference to the private sector, and that is that rents are set at a percentage of their income. Social housing rents go up and down when the renter’s income decreases or rises as the case may be.

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 changes have created an ambiguity for the income-based rental model used by the social housing sector, so this is speaking to some of those unintended consequences. It meant that social and affordable housing providers would have been unable to adjust rents more than once a year even if an additional income-earning adult moved into the house or an adult child moved out. So it is about giving more flexibility and being able to adapt to changing circumstances.

Also, a critically important amendment relates to notices to vacate. These could previously only be issued on the market rent value of the property, meaning that households would accrue a significant rental debt before the formal process of eviction could actually begin. Now, of course eviction is the last resort—nobody wants to see people put out onto the street—but sometimes starting a formal process can be a trigger for the household to discuss the issues that have led to their rent arrears and prevent them from perhaps accruing further debt so large that it would actually take many years to pay back. I know it might pose some concern to people, these arrangements, but it is actually a positive opportunity to engage and have a dialogue with people to understand their particular circumstances. I think that is a really positive opportunity and a good opportunity that should be embraced and acted upon. So from a technical perspective these changes—I will not go through the technical aspects, but they are amending various sections of the act—as I said, will remove some of these unintended consequences.

Also, there are priority allocations; I touched on that earlier. This is about equal opportunity provisions and it allows for positive discrimination, which means the people who ordinarily would not have been able to access some parts of our social housing arrangements will be able to. It means that the social and affordable housing sector will continue to prioritise housing for people who are in the greatest need. This will be, for example, to the benefit of Aboriginal Victorians, women who are experiencing family violence and disabled or older Victorians. It is a really tricky thing in the disability housing sector, as I know from many constituents of mine. I am working at the moment with Manningham Inclusive Community Housing in my region to look at how we can assist children who want to leave home and live independent lives to actually access disability housing. One of the models for disability housing is not like what you might think about with the old group homes. What adult children often want is to be able to live in their own home but be assisted by caregivers or people who might come and assist them with their shopping. They are entitled as well, just as we are, to live the best lives that they can and have a life based on self-determination and a life that they want to lead. So it is important that we look to options to add to the range of options that are available in the disability housing sector as well, and this might provide a good opportunity for that along with other measures. These measures do not reduce social and affordable housing providers’ legal responsibility to positively discriminate. Those are existing obligations, and the providers will remain accountable for any allegations of discrimination through and under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

As I said, I will just quickly talk about the Centrelink direct debit aspect. There is an administrative error that these amendments will correct and it will require the director of housing to use this Centrepay payment system for renters who are Centrelink clients. So again, it is just making a technical amendment to make that happen.

Finally, the bill makes a number of amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act—again some technical amendments—that will align the specialist disability accommodation act provisions with mainstream tenancy rights and refine some of the provisions to ensure they operate as originally intended.

We have had some excellent contributions in the house today that went into much more detail than I have done today, but you can see why these amendments, as proposed, are necessary. Whilst the bill is small the amendments it contains are profound and important to the protection of vulnerable Victorians, and I would commend these amendments and the bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (13:11): Before I proceed to discuss other aspects of the bill I just want to pick up on some issues raised by Mr Ondarchie. With regard to the idea of an ombudsman in this space the government acknowledges that external dispute resolution is an important issue being explored in the current review of the Retirement Villages Act 1986. We are aware of community concerns regarding dispute resolution in retirement villages. Stakeholder views on external dispute resolution were sought during public consultation on the review’s issues paper, issued last year. The next stage of the review is the issuing of an options paper for public comment, due to be published before the end of 2020. This will inform the policy direction, which we expect to be finalised next year. So I just wanted to immediately in this space address issues raised by Mr Ondarchie, noting that there were amendments that really could not wait for that process and that is why the government has brought them forward as expediently as possible, obviously, to address some pretty poignant and significant issues that impact the community in a negative way and also to empower the government to be able to help and assist more in this space in supporting a community where there is obvious inequity prevailing.

I know that my fellow colleagues have spoken quite in depth on the other changes with regard to retirement villages, so I thought I would speak a little more to some of the issues that have been raised in the chamber pertaining to social housing and that aspect of the bill. I believe Dr Ratnam raised issues regarding positive discrimination, and I am pleased to say that the bill is helping in that space. It does not detract from that space—certainly not. Also our government’s position on addressing social housing is, I should say, that it is certainly a very high priority.

I am co-chair of the Prahran social housing renewal project and chair of the Brighton social housing renewal project, and both of these residences were not in a good state, let us say. They were well and truly built back in, I think, the 1960s and were very much in a poor state and not what we as a modern society expect when we are supporting our most vulnerable and giving them the dignity and respect of social and affordable housing. So I am very pleased that they are both at the demolition stage; they are very much moving along. We have got a very close connection with the local community, including former residents and current residents, and it is very much a collaborative process. We are looking forward to building structures that not only meet the needs of people who are vulnerable in our community and need that kind of abode and housing support, can I say, but also are looking at being sustainably built. When we are looking at energy efficiency and moderating costs over time and when we are looking at maintaining these properties, not only are we lifting them to modern standards but we are also looking after the environmental aspect. That gets me very excited. They are also much more livable for those who may be least able to afford extensive cooling and heating. So it makes a lot more sense to have buildings which are climate proof, so speak, and also to ensure that there is appropriate disability access, which in this era we see as a given but obviously in times gone by may not have had the prioritisation that it surely should.

And it is not only in Prahran and Brighton, it is in other parts of our state, and it is only one aspect of social housing and building more social and affordable housing for those people in our community who do need that. And we have to say, ‘Look, you know, no-one is immune’. Anything can happen to anyone at any time that puts one in a vulnerable space, and certainly in a civilised society we are very much behind supporting social housing, helping people along, because we know that there is a domino effect, isn’t there? When you can no longer afford to live in a property and you are on the street it is a horrible and vulnerable position to be in, and then it is like a domino effect to other aspects of your life: security, safety and dignity. Anyway, I just thought I would speak to that because I know a couple of those issues were raised. I also will get to the issue of positive discrimination as well.

We know the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA) does set out rights and responsibilities of all renters in Victoria whether they are in private rental or public or community housing, and we must admit that the majority of residents are in the private rental market. Hence the amendments this government has introduced are primarily focused on the private rental market. That being said, there are over 80 000 households—that is certainly a significant percentage of the Victorian community—in public or community housing in Victoria where rents are set not by the market, because that would not work and that would not be fair, but with reference to household income and what these households can afford to pay without being pushed into poverty. I am sure it is known by people in this chamber that it is targeted to people in the greatest need—people experiencing homelessness, women and children escaping family violence, people living with a disability and those over 55. Fundamentally what these amendments do is address unintended consequences of recent RTA reforms that do not reflect the differences between the private rental market and social housing clearly.

The three core elements that we could say the amendments focus on in terms of ensuring that the social housing system can keep operating in the way that it was intended are, one, ensuring that rental rebates for social housing renters can be adjusted more than once a year as renter incomes change, and that is in keeping and consistent with the terms of equity that one would expect when you are looking at the provision of social housing; two, ensuring the social and affordable housing sector can continue to allocate housing to the people who need it most, and I am starting to get into that positive discrimination element; and three, ensuring that the director of housing can use existing automatic deduction arrangements with Centrelink to collect rent, which would appear to be a fundamental and pretty critical element, certainly.

These important changes will protect some of the unique features of the social and affordable housing sector—features that support the sector to house Victoria’s most vulnerable renter households. They will help support greater rental certainty and equity, especially for those relying on commonwealth benefits. These changes will recognise in legislation the income-based rent model that is particular to the social housing sector and applies to about 76 000 of the 84 000 households in social housing in Victoria. As most of these houses are actually relying on commonwealth benefits, the rent that they pay is set at between 25 and 30 per cent of their household income and not the amount that the property would command on the open market. Under this model the discounted rent that households pay is known as the ‘rebated rent’ as renters receive a rental rebate or discount on the price the property would command in the private market and the percentage of their income that they can afford to pay.

We can see that this model is profoundly different to the private rental sector. Because these rents are set at a percentage of income, these social housing rents go up and down. They fluctuate with people’s lives. They might take in someone. Somebody might move out. A child might go to university or move interstate—all the vicissitudes of life that can happen—or the person who might have a job might be out of a job. Who knows what can happen, as can happen to anyone else not in this situation. So if it is fixed at once a year, then we can see inevitably that that is going to leave the system askew and actually create unfortunate discrepancies and actually inequities potentially along the path either way: one where if their income increases, we would expect then that they can pay more rent; conversely, if their income decreases, they would then have the rent moderated.

The RTA changes created ambiguity for the income-based rental model used by the social housing sector. What this has meant is that social and affordable housing providers have been unable to adjust rents more than once a year—which is what I was alluding to just now—even if you had an additional earner coming into your property. And we can see why that just does not make any sense at all. What are we talking about here? It will mean that the rebate can be adjusted and the amount paid by households can increase when pensions and benefits increase, when renters earn higher income or when a person moves into the household, and this can occur more often than every 12 months. So it is just fair and right and just.

Also—this was actually alluded to by Ms Terpstra as well—the rent and rebate amendments will ensure the social housing sector can continue to base notices to vacate for rent arrears on the actual amount the renter pays if a rebate renter does not meet their financial obligation to pay their rent. It is actually a really critical element. We know that without it notices to vacate could only be issued on the market rent value. What would this mean? This would mean that households would accrue significant rental debt before the formal processes for eviction could begin, and then you would see a further domino of inequity that just does not need to happen.

Again as Ms Terpstra was alluding to, when it comes to eviction it is not a positive thing. I almost feel uncomfortable talking about it, but we have to face the fact that sometimes, pursuant to the legal requirements and the regulatory requirements, that just comes about. However, it does spark an opportunity. It creates an opportunity for further discussion and hopefully resolution, and in many cases resolution of an issue and actually not necessarily having to land in that space and actually creating a better outcome for the resident.

Now, speaking to this issue of positive discrimination, the amendments mean the social and affordable housing sector can continue to prioritise housing for people who are in the greatest need for social housing, which is fundamentally what it is all about. The social and affordable housing sector can continue to positively discriminate when they allocate housing—for instance, to Aboriginal Victorians, women who are experiencing family violence or disabled or older Victorians. I am pleased to share that, because I know that it was flagged over there. I believe it was already resolved ahead of being flagged anyway. However, I just did want to speak to that to be reflective of the importance and significance of these amendments in making sure that that is not compromised.

Importantly the amendments do not reduce social and affordable housing providers’ legal responsibilities to avoid discriminatory practices, so those protections remain in place. Providers will remain accountable for allegations of discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010. These amendments also protect the eligibility criteria for social housing under the Victorian Housing Register—essentially Victoria’s gateway for social housing. And it makes good sense that we simply, consistent with our values, make sure that when we are introducing legislation amendments we are furthering and enhancing the protection of those most vulnerable in our community.

Now, we did talk about—it is funny how these things come up—the Centrelink direct debit issue. The last of the social housing amendments corrects an administrative error which requires the director of housing to use the Centrepay payment system for renters who are Centrelink clients. The director of housing, like all other state and territory public housing agencies, is in fact ineligible for Centrepay. Instead it uses a separate rental reduction scheme to debit rents from renters via Centrelink. So I am pleased to say that this amendment corrects that issue to ensure that the director of housing can continue with these longstanding arrangements. That is pretty important, and again, it is amazing. But in the scheme of all the things that are happening we do have to make these changes along the way to support our most vulnerable.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (13:26): I am very grateful to get the opportunity to sum up on this bill—it is a very important bill—in this very serene, quiet chamber on Thursday afternoon when there is going to be a late lunch.

Mr Finn: Most of us are comatose.

Mr LEANE: Yes. And, Mr Finn, I am going to try my best to keep us that way in this summing up. Can I thank all the people that contributed to this debate. It is always good to speak after Ms Taylor has spoken. I think Ms Taylor brings a great level of enthusiasm and optimism to this place that lends to the sort of society I want to live in. I also want to compliment her, while I have got the opportunity, on the great job she does as the Government Whip, particularly when she gives me extra speaking spots. ‘Always be kind to your whip’ I was told when I first came in here, and I will do that.

Dr Ratnam mentioned some concerns that she worked through with the minister’s officials and the department’s officials around section 30A, which is inserted through the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. I think, in fairness, she did say she found a place where she and her party were quite comfortable, but to get to a point where we are fulfilling on the conversation we had with Dr Ratnam, I intend to give an explanation of the part of the act that she had her original concerns about so that it is on the public record. Section 30A, which was inserted through the amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018, only cites section 52 of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 rather than the entirety of the EO act, which contains exemptions and concepts such as indirect discrimination and special measures and which are actions that are not treated as discrimination. I think that goes back to a number of contributions, including Ms Taylor’s contribution, around the positive discrimination that is needed when someone who is in most need should be given priority for a public housing position. I think we would all agree that that is probably the best way for this particular issue to be treated.

Going on with the particular part which in fairness to Dr Ratnam should be put onto the public record by me, this has resulted in a situation in which a breach of section 30A of the Residential Tenancies Act may occur by activities currently undertaken by the director of housing and other social and affordable housing providers. The bill amends the Residential Tenancies Act to clarify that the director of housing may continue to set criteria for allocation of social and affordable housing to applicants with the greatest housing need from the Victorian housing register. These criteria are gazetted as director of housing determinations made under section 142E(1) of the Housing Act 1983.

The bill clarifies that the setting and application of these determinations can continue without contravening the Residential Tenancies Act. It also clarifies that the social and affordable housing sector may continue to allocate tenancies, including rooming house occupancies, to eligible applicants without contravening the new anti-discrimination provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act. This means that the allocation of social housing can continue to be prioritised for the people who are in greatest need. The wider social and affordable housing sector can also continue positive discrimination when they are allocating housing. For example, for Aboriginal Victorians, women who are experiencing family violence, or disabled or older Victorians, this may be targeting their housing in accordance with their organisational mission. I think this is a position that we would all agree with.

Hopefully that acquits Dr Ratnam’s agreement and alleviates the concerns she had. I think her concerns were relevant, and hopefully that clarifies it, as I said, because we need to be in a position where the people in most need are accommodated. I think that housing and homelessness is an issue that our government is greatly concerned about and has a mission on. I was speaking to the Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne, only this morning about another issue. I have got to say that Minister Wynne has a great passion around this area, and I found it disappointing yesterday that during another debate one of the opposition members indicated—and, in fairness, I do not think it was directed at the Minister for Housing—that there may have been some racial undertones in the public housing having to be shut down during the COVID emergency that was there.

I know during that period of time Minister Wynne actually took that activity to heart. I do not think he spent any time asleep during that period to ensure those public tenants were looked after in the best way possible. Nothing is perfect in a global pandemic, and there were some slight issues that needed to be addressed, but I just found it a bit unfair for that comment to be made. I also found it a bit rich coming from a member of the opposition. I do not know if it was their major platform, but at the last election they took a platform to the electorate that there might be an African gang around every corner that was going to do horrible things to you, therefore demonising a whole group that have brought such great aspects of where they have come from and their culture to Melbourne, which we should all be celebrating, not trying to demonise. I found it a bit depressing that that was said, and I really hope that no political party in 2022 will actually run on a platform similar to that, because I think it is just divisive, and you can see it did not work. I do not know if I would bother, but anyway, you never know.

Since we came to government there has been $4 billion spent on housing and homeless services, and just recently $150 million was spent on a program called From Homelessness to a Home. That saw 2000 people who were experiencing homelessness or rough sleeping having roofs over their heads during recent months while we have all been trying to do what we can during the COVID-19 challenge that we are all facing.

I was listening to Mr Hayes’s contribution where he successfully moved a motion to have a reference to a committee yesterday. I thought he made a really good point. This was a situation where we proved it could happen. This was a situation where we proved to ourselves, whether it be the government, whether it be society, whether it be this Parliament, that this can happen—that if there are 2000 people that are sleeping rough, we can find ways to accommodate them, as we should, in housing. I want to commend Minister Wynne again. I think we set a good standard and we can keep going. Is there anything good that can come out of a global pandemic? Probably the fair answer would be no.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr LEANE: Well, a Richmond premiership—there is an asterisk next to it. But I think we have been forced to learn different ways to do things in a number of ways, and this is one of them. I just want to congratulate Richard and the government for acting quickly—

Mr O’Donohue: Richard? Who’s that?

Mr LEANE: Richard Wynne, I should say. You cannot say first names. You are right, stickler. And on top of that there have been 1000 new public housing units built. There has been $1 billion into the Social Housing Growth Fund. These figures sound great, but I concede, and I know Richard Wynne would concede, that there is a lot more we can do. I know he is passionate about it. I think there are a lot of people in this chamber passionate about it, so I look forward to more initiatives and more activities around this area, because, as I said, I know we have all got a genuine concern. In the society we live in, despite the recent dent we have taken from a global pandemic, we live in quite a wealthy society, and I think we need to all accept that it is just not good enough if we have got some of our people that need a lift to the point that they are actually sleeping on the street. We all need to do better, and I am committed to that, I think the government is committed to that and, as I said, I think the chamber is committed to that. I think we can all work together and get better outcomes into the future.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity of summing up on this bill. I hope I have acquitted Dr Ratnam’s concerns by putting on the record that description of why that part of the section was introduced into this bill. I am sure I have. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (13:39): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

I thank everyone for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.

Worker Screening Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (13:40): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate the opposition supports this important piece of legislation. It seems like yesterday when the then Premier, Denis Napthine, joined the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in Melbourne to sign Victoria to the national disability insurance scheme back in May 2013. I am very pleased to have been a part of the Victorian cabinet at that time and to have been a part of the government that made the decision to join to the NDIS. Of course Dr Napthine, the then Premier, was passionate about this issue and was very keen for Victoria to sign up to the national disability insurance scheme, given his son Jack has autism and his previous role as community services minister in the Kennett government. He had been minister for I think only a few days when the Kew Cottages fire and issue happened, and so he was very passionate about this issue.

I suppose whilst it is nice to think about what has happened in the past and go down memory lane back to 2013, which is quite a few years ago, it is a roundabout way of acknowledging that governments, federal and state, of coalition Liberal-Nationals or Labor, have all been involved in the development of the NDIS, its evolution, its architecture and getting us to where we are now. I think we can all agree that the NDIS system is a significant advance on the state-based arrangements that existed before, and while there is still a significant way to go, it has come a long way since Denis Napthine as Premier and Julia Gillard as Prime Minister signed up to the agreement and came to terms on that. I note that then minister Mary Wooldridge was the community services minister at the time.

Dr Bach: A fine minister.

Mr O’DONOHUE: An excellent minister. She had some very good people supporting her at the time, and that all helped culminate in that agreement that I referred to—very good advice, very good support. It can never be underestimated, the importance of good, sound advice and people to help you. I know Minister Wooldridge was very ably supported.

As I said, the NDIS has been maturing and developing, and there have been hurdles, challenges and issues along the way, and there are still issues to be dealt with, resolved and addressed as the scheme is completely rolled out and the issues associated with rolling out such an enormous change in the framework for service delivery across the nation are managed. But we have come a long way indeed. In that context this Worker Screening Bill 2020 is another step forward, in some ways an important step forward, for community safety. Again, it is a reflection of the states and the commonwealth working together. It implements a nationally agreed system where the database will be managed by the commonwealth and implemented and managed by the state, and that is the agreed system that is being rolled out across the nation.

Fundamentally, the bill in front of us replicates the working with children check process. It repeals the Working with Children Act 2005 and puts the NDIS worker screening process and the working with children check process into the one piece of legislation. Importantly, there will be information sharing for the worker screening process between the states. As I said, that will be managed and housed by the commonwealth.

Victoria, I think sensibly, is using the working with children check process as, if you like, a prototype or a precedent for the worker screening process. I am pleased that the Department of Justice and Community Safety is the department to manage both; replicating that process in DHHS would be challenging. It makes sense given that the Department of Justice and Community Safety already manages the working with children check process and therefore has some existing capacity and understanding in managing that. Obviously it is an important part of community safety that anyone employed or volunteering to provide services as part of the NDIS is appropriately screened and checked, because we are dealing with often very vulnerable people and you need confidence that those workers, those volunteers, have been appropriately screened and can comply with the needs of a safe workplace and the like. There were some concerns raised about the duplication of process for those organisations that already have a screening system and a screening process pursuant to the existing Victorian regime. I think through discussion with the minister’s office those concerns have been largely dealt with, although it would be beneficial if the minister in her summation perhaps dealt with that.

Another issue that has been raised through the consultation process, and I thank my colleague Mr Bull, the member for Gippsland East in the other place, who has provided some input through his consultations with stakeholder groups and organisations. There was some concern about NDIS recipients who are self-managing, often using those NDIS-supported resources to have family or neighbours or friends provide some of those services, and whether there would be appropriate screening for those people. I understand that going forward there has been recent advice that all people providing services pursuant to the NDIS will have to have an ABN or work for an organisation that has an ABN, which will then be crosschecked and which should help with the compliance issue. Again, if the minister wishes to address that in the summation that would be helpful.

Whilst the bill is incredibly large and complex, what it seeks to do is to implement a national agreement to ensure the safety of NDIS-funded programs and assistance, and that is a good thing. That is why the opposition supports the bill.

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (13:48): I rise today to make my contribution on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. I support this important bill, and I hope those opposite can also understand how important this piece of legislation is.

Mr Finn: He just said that.

Ms VAGHELA: Yes. But, Mr Finn, you did not even let me finish.

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms VAGHELA: Yes, and my next sentence was going to be, ‘I was glad to hear’, but Mr Finn just had to jump the gun. Victoria has signed up to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme like any other Australian jurisdiction. It is completely reorganising the way we fund disability services for the better. The NDIS empowers the people with disabilities. It gives them an opportunity to make sure that they can control their future. It is a system where the person with disability can choose their own provider, giving them freedom and control. Today we have an opportunity here to make sure that the people who work in the disability industry can be trusted by the people they serve.

This bill is about protecting Victorians who use services under the NDIS. This bill provides a Victorian screening regime through which an applicant for an NDIS check will be subject to a check of their criminal and disciplinary history and given a clearance or an exclusion based on an assessment of the offence or misconduct. This NDIS check is akin to the current working with children scheme. It will help create one framework for screening people working within the NDIS and with children.

Labor governments have a long and proud history of safeguarding vulnerable people and children. It was the Bracks government that introduced the Working with Children Act 2005, and it was the former federal Labor government that introduced the national disability insurance scheme, the NDIS. I am sure all of you can agree how important the Working with Children Act 2005 is. It has played a critical role in keeping children safe through establishing a process to screen the criminal history information of people who work or seek to work with them. Children have every right to be safe wherever they are, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to ensure they are safe wherever they are. Since the working with children check was introduced we have seen thousands of people denied the ability to work with children. Those rejections tell us that countless children have remained safe. We think that people with disability deserve the same level of strict protections. People living with disability should never have to worry about abuse from the people who are supposed to support them. Through this bill we are extending protections so people with disability can have peace of mind.

Registered NDIS providers are required to meet worker screening requirements, which include ensuring that certain workers are subject to an NDIS check. That is a condition of registration. The people who are already working in this industry are outstanding people. They have dedicated their lives to supporting their clients. This is a job with high responsibilities, and it should come with strict safeguards. We observed National Carers Week earlier this month. National Carers Week, from 11 to 17 October, was an opportunity to recognise their incredible efforts. There are 2.65 million Australians who provide care and support to their family members or friends with disability. Among those 2.65 million Australians are 736 600 Victorians. Our amazing carers make an enormous difference to the people they care for. Many people that I know are doing amazing work caring for people with disability. This bill before us also recognises the important work our carers are doing by acknowledging the need to provide protection to people with disability. We all know that there is no place for abuse anywhere. Anyone who works in a job with such high responsibility as caring for people who are vulnerable must meet strict criteria to make sure that they are the best fit for the job.

This bill is about a single screening framework for people working with vulnerable persons. This bill will be placing the NDIS worker screen and the working with children check in a single framework. This makes sense as the risk assessment considerations of both checks have common objectives. The single screening framework of the combined screening programs will bring consistency in both programs over time. In a longer term this new framework can be used to add extra worker screening programs for different industries if necessary.

This bill is a result of considerable work across Australian governments. This has helped in creating a nationally consistent screening check for workers under the NDIS. The Council of Australian Governments endorsed the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which responded to the need identified in the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework for a nationally consistent system for worker screening. Five key parameters for NDIS worker screens for each state and territory were set by intergovernmental agreement. They include, first, who has to get an NDIS worker screen; second, how to work with self-managed NDIS participants; third, how to apply for a screen; fourth, what the offences should be for working without a screen; and, fifth, the types of information to be checked and who should be considered automatically cleared or excluded and who should be presumed excluded. This intergovernmental cooperation means that the worker screen will apply across state and territory lines, roles and employers. Other states and territories are working on their versions of this bill.

The bill is about information sharing to support Victoria’s commitment to no diminution in safeguards. The Victorian government has committed to no diminution of safeguards during transition to the NDIS in Victoria. We have established the disability worker exclusion scheme to operate while Victoria transitions to the NDIS. This means that existing levels of protection will be maintained during the transitional phase before the commencement of the NDIS worker screen.

The bill will also provide a mechanism to enable information from the disability worker exclusion scheme, operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, to be shared and used to ensure that a person who applies for an NDIS worker screen can be excluded on the basis of disability worker exclusion scheme information. Any such exclusion would apply nationally. The bill achieves this by providing that where a person who is listed on the disability worker exclusion list applies for an NDIS worker screen, that person must be risk assessed, providing for identifying information to be transferred to the worker screening unit so that the screening unit is able to ascertain whether an applicant for an NDIS worker screen has been previously excluded and by enabling, during the course of the person’s assessment, the worker screening unit to obtain the information that gave rise to the exclusion, pursuant to information-sharing arrangements.

The bill also facilitates the provision of information to the bodies established under the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018 in order to support consistency in screening outcomes to the extent possible between the NDIS worker screen and Victoria’s voluntary disability worker registration screening. Basically in the bill the two worker checks are structured very similarly. They will include common elements, such as the establishment of identity, the checking of criminal history and the categorisation of offences and conduct into three risk assessment levels according to the seriousness of the identified conduct.

While there are many similarities between the working with children check and the NDIS check, there are necessarily some differences, in most cases due to the national agreement around what NDIS worker screening should look like. NDIS workers who hold a clearance will be identified on the national clearance database and will be subject to national continuous monitoring, meaning that clearances and exclusions will be nationally portable across roles and employers within the NDIS. NDIS clearance holders will not need to hold a card, as is the case with the working with children check. The new NDIS check will also take account of any relevant information held by the Department of Health and Human Services if a person who has been excluded from working with people with disability under the disability worker exclusion scheme applies for an NDIS check.

In terms of consultation, this bill gives effect to Victoria’s agreement to implement NDIS worker screening in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. So in short, the Worker Screening Bill seeks to create a single framework for screening potential workers in the NDIS and for child-related work. The creation of the new worker screening framework also makes it easier to add additional checks and screens for other industries in the future. The merging of working with children checks and NDIS screening into a single framework is also being done in Tasmania and the ACT.

In conclusion, I am glad to be contributing in support of another bill that will protect and support Victorians, especially our vulnerable Victorians. This bill ensures that our community members with disability can feel safe. I am proud of the Andrews Labor government’s commitment towards a more inclusive Victoria. I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 2.01 pm until 3.06 pm.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:06): I am also pleased to rise to join the debate on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. It is a bill that it is apt for us to be discussing this week in particular given some of the themes we have been discussing in this house so far. I was really pleased to rise just a couple of days ago to speak on a government bill seeking to better regulate boarding houses, and I was so pleased to support that bill because I thought that in a small but nonetheless substantive way that bill would hopefully lead to greater safety for kids in our boarding houses. I am also pleased to support this bill because I think that it will go some way to seeking to ensure that Victorians with a disability are safer. At the outset—and this is not something that I intend to dwell upon in my contribution—I note that there are some concerns from within the sector about duplication and about an additional layer of regulatory burden; nonetheless, as I have said, I think that given the importance of what we are discussing, the substantive matters regarding the bill, that it is very much worth supporting.

The commonwealth National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Worker Screening Database) Bill 2019 was introduced in July 2019 and it was assented to in October 2019. Simply to provide some context, the new worker screening check was to be introduced in each state and territory by July 2020 but due to COVID that had to be delayed, which I understand.

The bill is about protecting some of our most vulnerable Victorians who access services under the NDIS by introducing a new worker screening scheme which will apply to those who provide services in this sector, and it provides for the continued uninterrupted operation of the working with children check. The protection of children of course must be an uppermost priority for those of us in this chamber, if not our uppermost priority. I noted many of the comments made by Ms Vaghela in her remarks, and I would agree with her of course that this Labor government and previous Labor governments have tried to do good work in this space. I note some of the remarks by Ms Watt in her, I thought, very powerful inaugural speech yesterday about her particular passion for supporting vulnerable Victorians. So again I would note that it has been good for me as a relatively new member of this place on now at least two occasions in this house over this week to see that all members are coming together around what are really important priorities for the Victorian people and undoubtedly really important priorities for all members of this place.

I will make just a couple of points regarding the commitment of those of us on this side of the house to seeking to protect vulnerable Victorians, and I do so in no way to seek to engage in one-upmanship but rather—in the spirit that Ms Vaghela made her remarks about the ongoing commitment of the Labor Party to seek to support vulnerable Victorians—only in an effort to seek to demonstrate that on many important points regarding vulnerable Victorians we are in fact as one.

It was fantastic for me to work during the period of the Baillieu government in this broad space when, for example, we initiated the 2013 parliamentary inquiry into the handling of child abuse chaired by my good friend Ms Crozier, and of course, as has been discussed already in this place this week, that led to the Betrayal of Trust report and to significant new child safety laws.

While I was an adviser to the then Minister for Community Services, she announced the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry, the Cummins inquiry, of 2011, which tabled a landmark report in 2012 and also led to some significant changes. So I would agree with those opposite that significant examples of both good intentions and policy success can be pointed to no matter which side of politics happened to be in government at that time. But I would also note, especially when it comes to the support of people with disabilities, that certainly in the past we have all also failed, and I think that is worth reflecting upon when discussing the national disability insurance scheme.

When I was working as an adviser to Minister Wooldridge and was her adviser across the disability services portfolio there was one question in particular that I just dreaded from parents of children, oftentimes adult children, with a really significant disability. I was asked it all the time and I had no answer; I dreaded being asked it. It was: what will happen to him or her when I die? I know through my discussions with members of staff in Minister Jenny Macklin’s office at that time, when she was working with Minister Wooldridge in Victoria and many other ministers from around the country to seek to drive the national disability insurance scheme, that all of us felt it was a source of national shame that we could not answer that question, in particular for ageing carers at that time caring for and looking after their adult children, noting that there was so little room to move when it came to supported accommodation.

I think broadly speaking we would all support the measures that were taken in the 1990s, during the term of the Kennett government, to deinstitutionalise disability care. We learned that so many things that were fundamentally wrong occurred in those institutions for people with disabilities, so it was the right thing to do to seek to move people with a disability into the community and to genuinely include them. But the funding was never provided—not by coalition governments and not by Labor governments—to properly ensure that Victorians with really serious and significant disabilities were cared for both when their parents were alive and most certainly once their parents had passed away.

That was the key reason, to tell you the truth, why I was so thrilled that there was so much support around that time for driving the national disability insurance scheme. It has already been noted that many senior figures in the Labor Party were really passionate about the NDIS at that time. I would simply affirm that from my work with Minister Macklin’s office. I know that Minister Wooldridge worked very closely with Minister Macklin herself in a really collaborative way to seek to get the national disability insurance scheme off the ground. It is not a perfect reform, not by any means, and yet the situation was so dire for Victorians with disabilities before the national disability scheme that it is certainly worth ongoing support—yes, changes where changes are necessary, but ongoing support.

Let me come to some of the key provisions in the bill just briefly. The bill seeks to provide for the screening of persons employed or engaged in risk-assessed roles for the purposes of service provision under the NDIS in line with the nationally agreed approach for all jurisdictions. It also seeks to assist in protecting children against sexual and physical harm by providing screening for people who work with or care for children by continuing the working with children check. These are just a couple of the key provisions of the bill that I would like to speak about briefly.

I would join with other members of this house in wanting to put on the record my admiration for the people who work in the disability sector. It is really difficult, isn’t it, to find the appropriate words to talk about such sensitive things as these without putting one’s foot in it and seeming like we do not have adequate respect for the vast majority of people who work in this incredibly important sector, who are there for all the right reasons and who do great work. Nonetheless, we do know, as was the case when discussing boarding schools earlier this week, that a small minority of people who work alongside vulnerable Victorians have bad intentions, so it is necessary to continue to revisit the appropriate regulations. As I have said, I think this bill makes some improvements.

I know she has now left the chamber, but I was interested by Ms Tierney’s ministers statement earlier today talking about the great expertise that we have in the city of Geelong. It is a great resource for us. At the time of the introduction of the national disability insurance scheme we felt in the Baillieu government and then in the Napthine government that Geelong would be a fantastic headquarters for the National Disability Insurance Agency. So at that time we worked again alongside the federal Labor Party, which was in power, to seek to ensure that there was a pilot program in Geelong and that there was also the housing of the National Disability Insurance Agency in Geelong, and we were successful in making that happen.

We also had a real focus at that time, as we must continue to have at this time and moving forward, on seeking to do whatever we could to ensure that people were safe when in disability services. We committed to expanding the role, for example, of the disability services commissioner. Until very recently the disability services commissioner was Mr Arthur Rogers, an outstanding and long-serving public servant. The minister, Minister Wooldridge, introduced the Disability Amendment Bill 2012, which sought a number of actions and allowed the disability services commissioner to consider complaints about organisations that did not fall within the then definition of ‘disability services’, and in some ways the bill before the house today continues to build upon that good work. I had some experience at that time of reading reports of some of the more troubling things that occurred in settings here in Victoria where support was provided for vulnerable Victorians. Critical incident reports sitting across the disability services portfolio but also across the child protection portfolio came to me at that time as the relevant adviser. Some of them, as you might imagine, were just heartbreaking. Therefore I think it is a good thing that, again, we can come together today to seek to affirm our shared ongoing commitment as a Parliament to supporting people with disabilities and more broadly to supporting more vulnerable Victorians in the settings in which they are when they receive their care.

Just before I finish, noting that in this debate today we are talking about Victorians who are vulnerable and who sometimes need protection, I nonetheless affirm something that I am sure all members across the house would agree with me regarding, and that is that Victorians with disabilities are capable of achieving so much. I used to think it was a funny thing that a former Labor community services minister, Christine Campbell, used to ensure that public servants whenever they wrote reports and her staff whenever they did writing for her capitalised the A in the middle of ‘disability’. I confess at the time I did not quite see the purpose for that, but the more I think about it the more I think Minister Campbell was onto something. She was simply seeking to really ram home the point that while, yes, of course we will debate measures like this one to seek to protect Victorians with disabilities—and we must not shy away from the fact that Victorians with disabilities are oftentimes more vulnerable than those who do not have disabilities—at the same time I think we can affirm what I know was a real passion of Minister Campbell and many opposite and certainly many on this side of the house, and that is the affirmation of Victorians with disabilities more broadly. I am so thrilled, for example, to see—coming back to a point Mr Leane made today—that there are many Victorians with disabilities who have put their hand up for council elections. I am hopeful that in my patch in Whitehorse a local resident, Amanda McNeill, who has a very significant disability, will get up on Whitehorse council.

So I commend this bill. I think it is a good bill. I commend all parties in the Parliament for their ongoing support of the national disability insurance scheme—it is a damn sight better than what we used to have—and I wish the bill a speedy passage through the house.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:20): I rise today to speak on the Worker Screening Bill 2020 and commend the government for proactively joining Victoria up to this scheme which will streamline the process for NDIS workers and protect our vulnerable and disabled Victorians. Traditionally and practically members stand up and speak on what is in a bill, but I am going to do something different today and talk about what is not in the bill.

What is missing from this bill is a commitment from the government to a no clearance, no start policy for working with children checks or at least some reform in this space so that we can potentially better prevent crimes from happening rather than being reactive. I am not sure if members remember a case from late last year where Hugh Lean, a convicted paedophile, was sentenced for disgraceful crimes against children. He had infiltrated a Melbourne junior football club and befriended a family there in 2008. He ended up sleeping in the bed of one of the brothers and molesting and committing lewd acts on the young boy. He was able to do this despite having convictions for a 2002 rape and an indecent act with the child under 16 and also a 2008 conviction for soliciting a 14-year-old for sex. Needless to say, if this young boy’s family had known about Lean’s convictions, they would never have allowed him into their home. It is also needless to say that working with children checks have changed since 2008, and especially since this crime took place, but there is still no requirement for working with children check applicants to have an approved clearance before they begin working or volunteering.

It can take up to eight weeks to get your official check, but in that time legally all you need to do for your employer or organisation is show your receipt. To me that is akin to being able to drive a car without passing your test, and in my view it should not happen because in the short term at least it defeats the purpose of the check itself. I have heard the argument made in response to there not being a no clearance, no start policy for working with children checks, that there basically are not enough people doing the wrong thing to warrant organisations or employers waiting. I personally think that if we are taking a cautious approach with our disabled Victorians to ensure that they are not taken advantage of, then we should do the same with our kids in all environments as they are vulnerable too.

On this note, it became apparent to me some time ago that supermarkets and other similar industries like retail and hospitality do not require completed working with children checks for the employees upon employment. Now, in a workplace where adults work with children for extended hours, without supervision a lot of the time, why is this not a requirement? I understand that it is more of a regulatory decision, but it would be great for the state government to have these conversations, as I have done, to encourage the retail and hospitality industries to take this step.

I am not in the business of wanting to create extra bureaucracy by any means, but it seems bizarre that netball and football clubs have unpaid volunteers who spend their time collecting working with children checks and information—or receipts as I have spoken about—from their coaches but profiting businesses do not need to commit this vigilant step. When Derryn Hinch was a senator he had success in getting the McDonald’s corporation to require approved working with children checks for all adult employees. This was an outstanding achievement, and I hope other businesses follow suit in taking the initiative on their own.

In summary, we will be supporting this bill, but we absolutely also encourage the government to explore proactive, precautious reform in the working with children check space in the very near future.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:23): I rise to make a contribution in support of this bill, and it is indeed a very important bill. Listening to the contributions of many in this chamber today, many have very adequately covered what the scope of the bill is. It is necessary and relevant and important to ensure that we can protect our most vulnerable Victorians, as has been talked about today.

This bill will protect Victorians who access services under the national disability insurance scheme by introducing a new worker screening scheme which will apply to those people who work in or provide services through the NDIS, akin with the working with children check scheme. As somebody who has worked in community sporting clubs—I was secretary of a tennis club—I know all of our committee of management were required to undergo working with children checks because of course in community tennis clubs there were children who were frequenting those clubs and you had coaches taking lessons for children and with children. Of course there were some very important obligations to make sure that we were able to screen people who were working with those children or coming into contact with children. That is one very important aspect of this, but so too, as I said, through the NDIS for people or children with disabilities. We need to make sure they are protected and that there is adequate screening for people who work with people who are needing to access services through the NDIS and with children.

So the legislative and operational structures of the new screening framework are built on the foundation of the Working with Children Act 2005, and that was redefined and improved since it commenced in 2006. This bill represents the next step in extending protections. As I said, it is to basically tie in or tidy up all of those necessary changes that need to be brought in to effectively screen workers who are working with people in these cohorts.

Some of the key features of the bill include that it will incorporate the existing requirements under the Working with Children Act by using and adapting the pre-existing legislative and operational framework to create a common structure and process for the new framework. The bill will not create any substantive change to the current working with children check arrangements but will instead move to a new legislative home alongside the NDIS worker screen. While the two worker checks will be separate, the NDIS worker screen will be similar in many ways to the working with children check. These similarities include common elements such as the establishment of identity and checking of criminal history, including spent convictions and relevant disciplinary findings, and the principle that the rights of children and people with disability will be paramount in decisions made under the act.

There are three categories for risk assessment of criminal and misconduct information based on the classification of offences, more commonly known as category A, category B or category C offences. Category A offences include violent crimes such as murder or rape. Victoria currently has the strictest list of crimes considered to be category A offences, and that in turn will afford the best possible protection to children and people with disability. Now, the checks will not classify all crimes in the same way; they will look at different things. For example, financial crimes are of great importance in assessing whether someone is appropriate to care for a person with a disability, whereas financial crimes are not particularly relevant when talking about protecting children from harm.

The bill will provide a decision-maker with powers to seek and share information as required, including the power to share information with other jurisdictions—in the case of the NDIS worker screen, with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The bill will also provide for applicants’ rights to procedural fairness and, except in limited circumstances, rights of review. The new legislation of course will not operate exactly the same way as the old Working with Children Check Act operated. As I said earlier, some of these changes will ensure that bodies are appropriately described and defined to reflect their role in the NDIS worker screens. Currently police officers are exempt from obtaining a working with children check. This is because they are considered to be a class of fit and proper person but also because they already have to undergo extensive background checking, and this includes a criminal history check, in order to become a police officer in the first place, so those two checks are quite stringent. This is similar to the way in which teachers, for example, are qualified to work with children through the Victorian Institute of Teaching.

Protective services officers currently have to undergo the same background check process but are not currently exempted from having to obtain a working with children check. So this creates an unnecessary barrier and as well creates an unfair financial impost. The bill will rectify that by recognising, with the existence of the background and criminal history checks that are already in place, protective services officers as a category of workers in the same way that police are in this regard. The bill will also adjust offences so that they efficiently support the administration of the bill and are formulated in the drafting style of the bill and will provide for a simpler and more timely process for suspension of an NDIS clearance that is still consistent with the working with children check process.

Additionally, and in recognition of the fact that some people may have to get both a working with children check and an NDIS worker screen, the bill will provide that no fee is payable for holders of an NDIS clearance who apply for a working with children check. This will ensure that rather than just providing for an exemption from a working with children check, all workers are appropriately screened for their particular roles. It will also ensure that there is not an unfair financial burden placed on applicants. Additionally it means that notifications to employers about a person’s working with children check status will continue, maintaining existing safeguards in relation to people who are working with children.

It is also important to note that there will be information sharing to support Victoria’s commitment to no diminution in safeguards. Victoria has committed to this not only in this bill but also during the transition to the NDIS in Victoria. To bridge the gap between agreeing to creating the new NDIS worker screen and it coming into force the government established the disability worker exclusion scheme to operate in the meantime. This has meant that existing levels of protection have been maintained during the transition phase and prior to the commencement of the NDIS worker screen.

We will also require going forward that a worker who has been screened under the disability worker exclusion scheme will be considered cleared to work in a risk-assessed role. The bill will also provide a mechanism to enable information from the disability worker exclusion scheme operated by the Department of Health and Human Services to be shared and used to ensure that a person who applies for an NDIS worker screen can be excluded on the basis of disability worker exclusion scheme information. Any such exclusion would apply nationally.

The bill will achieve this by providing that where a person who is listed on the disability worker exclusion list applies for an NDIS worker screen, that person must be risk assessed; by providing for identifying information to be transferred to the worker screening unit so that the screening unit is able to ascertain whether an applicant for an NDIS worker screen has been previously excluded; and by during the course of the person’s assessment enabling the worker screening unit to obtain the information that gave rise to the exclusion, pursuant to the information sharing arrangement.

Again, it is good to see that where it really matters and where child protection or protection of vulnerable Victorians is at the heart of something there is open sharing and access to relevant information pertaining to a person who is seeking clearance under these provisions. The bill also facilitates the provision of information to the bodies established under the Disability Service Safeguards Act 2018 in order to support consistency in screening outcomes to the extent possible between the NDIS worker screen and Victoria’s voluntary disability worker registration screen.

The new worker screening framework established by this bill, as I said earlier, provides for a program that will assess the risk of employees and volunteers to children and people with disability by screening people who work with these potentially vulnerable cohorts in a range of settings. This new approach to worker screening by placing both of these programs within the one framework means more efficiency in how we deliver these programs. It also means that we look at these issues in a different way rather than looking at every vulnerable group separately and not in an interrelated way—sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. But this bill will give flexibility to ensure that these circumstances are captured and that we can look at the whole issue, ensuring that all vulnerable Victorians are safe around the people who work with them. The legislative and operational model for this reform not only reinforces our commitment to the safety of the most vulnerable members of our community, it also ensures Victoria is well positioned for the future.

I really have been pleased to note that throughout the course of this debate there has been bipartisanship from those opposite around this issue. It is good to see that everyone in this place, in this chamber and from a cross-party point of view—all of us—are on the same page when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable Victorians. Whether they are our youngest Victorians, our smallest or littlest Victorians, as I touched on earlier, we know that we have teachers who work with children. Whether it be in day care settings or kindergartens or in our public school system, whatever it is, we want to make sure that there are robust frameworks that are in place, that they are able to access information about those particular people when they are working with children in those settings and that there is appropriate sharing of information in those settings, and likewise with disabilities.

We did hear earlier Mr Grimley’s contribution in regard to some very unfortunate and saddening incidents where people have been taking advantage of some of our most vulnerable Victorians in these settings. It is a real betrayal of trust. People in these cohorts really need to rely on protection from the rest of us, from the systems that are put in place and from our laws to make sure that these people are protected and not abused or taken advantage of. It is critically important. These changes being foreshadowed by this bill today are critically important. They will strengthen the systems. They will introduce a single screening framework for people who work with vulnerable Victorians and vulnerable groups. As I said, it provides the national context for the NDIS worker screening system, and it is a very critical and needed bill. I might leave my contribution there. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:37): I am really pleased to rise this afternoon and speak on the Worker Screening Bill 2020 and to note that, like I think all in this house, The Nationals will be very much supporting this bill and supporting the measures within it that help to ensure that our disability sector is well covered and that the participants in that sector are protected. In my contribution today I would like to first look at some of the measures within the bill and how it has changed from the Working with Children Act 2005. I would also like to flag the important roles of parents and carers and those amazing people who work in the disability sector—their roles and the importance of their roles—and also the vulnerability of those in the sector. I would also flag that in East Gippsland there is really important work being done. I would like to delve into that and share that with the government and also flag a request at the end of my sting of this report.

The purpose of this bill is certainly to look at screening and checking and a database for those who work with or care for children and providers within the sector, and it is to do certainly with the NDIS, the national disability insurance scheme. It repeals and replaces the Working with Children Act while adopting the established system and processes under the act to continue the working with children checks, which will be adapted to meet the requirements of the NDIS worker screening. In effect there will be two checks, both of which will be administered by the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety, which currently administers the working with children check.

In relation to working with children checks, they will continue uninterrupted with no change in the system that is already in place. So the people who currently have working with children checks will not be affected by this bill. However, they will have to renew their existing checks and their credentials as per the normal process. In assisting the protection of children against sexual and physical harm, it will be comforting for the community to know that no Victorian NDIS worker will be permitted to work unless they have this clearance under this check. I say that in the context that it is absolutely vitally important that the right people to work in this industry do work in this industry. We know of the most amazing dedication, care, nurturing, patience, understanding and professionalism that the absolute overwhelming majority of people in this industry do exhibit for their charges and for the sector.

But also we know that no matter how hard people try and how hard the system works with the check that has to be applied here, there will always be unfortunately people with evil intent. I guess it is about vigilance, and it is incumbent on all of us in our daily life and those working in the disability sector that if we see things we are uncomfortable with we call them out and we take them to the relevant authorities and that they progress them through the various stages of leadership and beyond. It is incumbent on all of us I think at this stage that we call out and we check. In some cases it may be a misunderstanding, but in others unfortunately it can be very wilful.

So the clearances will be identified on the national clearance database, which is to be operated by the commonwealth NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. This will be ongoing for monitoring. It is also important to note that certainly working with children checks are used in a variety of settings, and we have heard this from earlier participants in this debate—in sporting organisations and soccer clubs, which once I certainly was a part of, and all of our team leaders and coaches had to have their working with children checks, as they still do now; and also in scouts and guides and a whole raft of areas where we deal with children and where there is leadership and coaching of children, and this is very important as well. Certainly a person who holds an NDIS clearance will not be required to pay for an additional working with children check. This is important really—it is a one-size catch-all in that respect.

Now, the NDIS came to fruition in 2013 with a trial in Barwon, and certainly the Liberals and Nationals were instrumental in that in a commonwealth bilateral agreement which signalled the transition in 2015. I note that when the scheme started to roll out across the state the then Shadow Minister for Disability and my friend in East Gippsland the Honourable Tim Bull had the suggestion, a very important one, that those people who were disabled on the disability support register should be transitioned first into the NDIS as a way of flagging those that were not receiving good services at the time to fast-track them into the service. Now, unfortunately this was not adopted and there were people that had to wait and wait and wait, and it sort of progressed through into Gippsland. I know I had the absolute pleasure of working with some families in the Bass Coast shire at that time who really needed some services for their children. I think what is very evident when you work in our role is the absolute honour it is to meet those people and those families but also to see the stress and the strain and the struggle that parents and carers of those with profound disabilities have to endure, embrace and soldier on with on a daily basis. I think therefore it is always incumbent on us to flag needs and to flag issues, and that is what I was very pleased to do back in those early days of 2016.

Indeed I want to put on record my thanks to the Honourable Luke Donnellan, who only a couple of weeks ago I raised a very serious issue with about a family, the Volard family. I know Kate will not mind me mentioning this. Her daughter Adelaide is an amazing young girl and they are an amazing family, and they were seeking specialist disability accommodation. The chamber might remember I did an adjournment on it. It was just a horrible situation where they met every criteria in spades but somehow could not get through to be acknowledged for this special disability accommodation. The mum was weeping knowing that there was a place for Adelaide in the Wonthaggi house. It was especially designed for Adelaide, and I do want to put on record that Minister Donnellan fast-tracked the review of this and now Adelaide is soon to be accommodated in that space. So I think there are certainly some really productive things that can happen in this place as long as we advocate for those in need.

In relation to my East Gippsland example, I would really like to flag a group that is doing amazing work. The organisation is Save the Children. I think Save the Children would have a very high rating of credibility not just across Victoria but across the world with the work they do and the care they provide for all children and families. I know I have been to the Moe Save the Children head office there and seen the work they do to really bridge the gap with young mums, and young dads as well, bringing them in and providing services and really fun times for the children.

But this relates specifically to East Gippsland and the work that they are doing there. It sounds a big organisation, and it is, but drill down into East Gippsland and it is really run very much on a shoestring and with very few facilitators. I was pleased to have a meeting—a Zoom meeting, as we do these days—with Rachel Bell, a facilitator, and Jodie Simpson, a parent-carer and mentor in that area. If we look at East Gippsland, in recent times we have seen that East Gippsland has lived through chronic drought, through the terrible fires in the summer period which provided so much stress on families and resources, and also COVID and the limitations that COVID restrictions placed on families accessing services in a variety of forms. Speaking with Jodie and Rachel the other day, the whole philosophy and impetus and scope of the Children’s Wellbeing Initiative is around working with children with additional needs. Just to flag the work that they are doing: Jodie is very much a support and mentor to other parents who are coming into the system who have children who have been identified, maybe by the maternal and child healthcare sector very young, to have the need for additional services and treatment. She said she is the mother of two children with additional needs, and she said in the initial stages when she was seeking help she made 19 phone calls to NDIS—19 phone calls in order to get a satisfactory answer and some pathways. Now, you have to be fit of mind and sure of stability and strength to be able to work through the maze of that sometimes. This is not a criticism. It is I guess a bit of a check to flag the need for support for those families, because not everyone has the ability to keep going through those 19 phone calls.

Certainly the ladies who I spoke to the other day talked about thin markets in our regional areas. We know that for many families to be able to access occupational therapy, speech therapists, a paediatrician, a language therapist, even just to get proper assessments, it can take weeks, months and years in regional Victoria. I know one mum said to me that she has got hearing difficulty. She lives in East Gippsland and she could seek the specialist in Bendigo. Surely it is so challenging for families, as I said, with children with special needs to be able to actually have these services.

So this group is an amazing group and I would just really like to flag some research that they have done. It is in terms of NDIS experiences. They conducted two surveys. Now, I do not think the sample size is massive; it is in the tens and hundreds rather than the thousands. In a way that is good, because we do not want to see thousands of young children needing this additional support—but the need is there. The survey that they conducted had a report card for the NDIS, and it said that 69 per cent of respondents to this survey said that their access to NDIS was ‘poor, moderately poor or average’. So almost 70 per cent said poor, moderately poor or average was the way that they felt that they could access the service, and 59 per cent of the respondents stated that they were not able to access services identified in their own NDIS plan. We know that these plans are very important. There is a thorough investigation and analysis to have an individualised support plan through the NDIS, but once they have got that, and often they have got the chunk of money to be able to allocate to various providers and services, 60 per cent in regional Victoria in this East Gippsland survey have not been able to actually access them.

So I am using this time to highlight the need for certainly a bulking up of these thin markets of support for families but also to support this group who are seeking funding through the children with additional needs working group. They are seeking $350 000 over a three-year period to help support families and carers to be able to provide those additional linkages and mental health support connections and to be an advocacy group for those families. We really want the best outcomes for our children, and so I call on the government—and I will be doing that in my adjournment matter later on today—to communicate with these people and find out how they can provide those funds. I also thank the Gippsland Disability Advocacy group, who very much are strong advocates in that area.

In conclusion, The Nationals are very pleased to be able to support this bill. On many occasions I am very confronting with the government and frustrated with the work that they do and the work that they seem to oppose in terms of regional benefits to people. In this case I think it is very much a good step forward, and The Nationals will be supporting this bill.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:51): I rise to speak on this Worker Screening Bill 2020. I do so today because this bill may or may not in the future have some impact on the taxi and hire car industry, so it is important that the industry understands this. This bill will deliver critical improvements to the current national disability insurance scheme and the working with children check. It is clear to me that this bill is focused on protecting those most vulnerable in our community, and that is why I will be supporting this bill today. This bill will assist our most vulnerable by streamlining processes and bringing the NDIS in line with the rest of Australia through aligning our NDIS check with the nationally agreed approach. Those who satisfy our worker screening can work in other states without having to undergo a second screening process. Likewise, if an applicant was found to be ineligible for an NDIS check in Victoria, this will be known to the other states. This is a vast improvement on the previous state-by-state approach.

This bill will recognise the similarities of worker screening for NDIS and for working with children. In recognition of these similarities, those who have an NDIS check will not need to apply for a working with children check. This will reduce the cost, time and obligation for those whose work requires both checks. Not only will this bill improve administration processes but it will also consolidate the process of getting a working with children check. This will ensure that any person who works with or cares for children has the best intentions and will provide appropriate care. Through strengthening these standards we can effectively safeguard our young people, protecting them from anyone who seeks to take advantage or cause harm. This is not a controversial idea. These checks and processes are essential.

It is more important than ever that we focus on protecting those most vulnerable in our society. COVID-19 has made it difficult for everybody. However, it is clear that those with disabilities have been disadvantaged even more severely. The economic repercussions of this pandemic will make it even more difficult for those with a disability to participate in the labour force and find a job. Before this pandemic it was already twice as likely that working age people with a disability would be unemployed. I can only imagine what the rate is now and will be during our recovery. Despite this, I have heard from my constituents who live with a disability and their families of the great strength and resilience they have shown in the face of this challenge.

I have also seen the incredible programs introduced in our communities that seek to reach out to our most vulnerable and address the dynamic issues they are experiencing right now. As we recover from this pandemic it will be so critical that the government invest in these valued community assets, such as our public libraries, that use their skills and resources and geographic reach to assist those most vulnerable. COVID-19 has taken so much out of our control. The NDIS program and this bill strive to give participants a choice in and control over who cares for them. These occupational roles have so much responsibility, and it is vital that we can safeguard these positions and provide those who qualify for the NDIS with the best care and support possible. So much is at stake in these roles, and that is why there must be strict criteria for work that relates to kids and people with disability. The NDIS intends to empower people with a disability. These safeguards mean participants do not have to worry about the intentions of the people that they choose to have work for them. With this bill in place, I can hold more confidence in our processes and procedures that aim to keep people safe.

Our disability support workers work so hard to support and empower their clients to live the best lives they can. I would like to thank them for their incredible work they do every day. These jobs have so much responsibility, and I believe those who work in this industry should feel great pride about the way they contribute to our community. This bill will assist these workers by creating a more streamlined approach, allowing them to use their NDIS checks to work around the country.

This bill is comprehensive and will bring us into line with the rest of the country, creating more consistency in our systems and processes. This bill will not undermine the existing protections in the Working with Children Act 2005, rather it will enhance the standard we apply to those who work with children and improve the clarity of the working with children check provisions. This bill protects those most vulnerable in our community and our young people. However, alongside policy improvements such as this, recovery from this pandemic demands investment in community assets that reach out and provide support to young people and people with a disability. This bill is a step towards a more inclusive Victoria, and that is why I am supporting this bill today.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (15:57): I also rise to speak on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. This bill—and I join many other speakers on this—is a bill that does enjoy the support of all members of the house. I think it is important that I speak about the merit of what is being proposed, which is to protect the most vulnerable people in our society. When we talk about people with disability and they are in our care or we ask other people to go and care for them, then definitely we need to make sure there are enough protections and safeguards put in place to make sure protection is provided.

Using a similar approach to the screening we do with the working with children check and having one agency—a one-stop shop, basically—do both I think is a great idea. It is a smart idea to actually apply that principle. We all know all sorts of horrible things do occur from time to time over the years, and that is probably the shocking side of humanity. We have got some human beings who like to prey on the vulnerable, whether they are children, people with disability or women. They think they have got the physique and they can get away with it, particularly with people with a disability, they can take advantage and maybe that person cannot stand up and defend themselves physically or mentally—they are not able to do that—so they take advantage of them. I think that is a horrible thing to do. That is why I think it is important, in order to avoid that situation occurring, to basically put a system in place to protect people with disability.

There is a program that is being worked out with the national government as well as a national standards framework that will be put in place. It is my understanding that similar legislation has been enacted already in the other states and other jurisdictions, or is about to be. So Victoria will be basically in line with what is happening nationally, and I think it is important to have a national approach.

That takes me back to—and I want to acknowledge—the great work that was done by the former Labor government to introduce the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS). I remember a lot of work was done on that, and I want to pay tribute to the assistant minister at the time, Bill Shorten, who had been given the task by Prime Minister Rudd, and Jenny Macklin as the minister to basically finally bite the bullet and recognise that we could do better to look after people with disability and that it was time that the nation invested in an insurance scheme so we could take the pressure off the day-to-day budget looking at whether we could afford to look after people. So the national disability insurance scheme was established and finally was delivered by Prime Minister Gillard, and I think that is a legacy that will remain forever as one of the legacies that federal Labor governments have left behind.

We know that scheme now enjoys the support of all sides of politics—the coalition and Labor and the crossbenchers—and I think it is important that that process does enjoy that joint approach, because we cannot be arguing and heckling every time there is a budget about how much money we can afford to spend on disability. Mind you, sadly, the coalition government last financial year failed to spend over $1 billion on disability which was budgeted to be part of the national disability insurance scheme. They failed to spend that money, and now that money has been spent elsewhere. That is disappointing, because whatever money is raised by that scheme, it should be spent on disability. But let us hope that will not happen again.

Also I want to acknowledge the good work that was done by Minister Donnellan, the Victorian Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. I know he is very passionate about looking after people with disability. He has done some great work in that space, and I congratulate him on bringing that bill forward.

Without going into all the details previous speakers have—and I know a few more speakers are coming after me to talk about this bill—going back to the purpose of the bill, it is to have that single screening framework put in place so we can make sure that we pick the right people. As I said, it is no different to what we do now with the working with children check. There are a number of steps a worker in that industry who wants to work with children has to go through to make sure they meet all the necessary requirements. Exactly the same process or a similar process will be adopted as part of this bill.

The intergovernmental agreement which has been put in place, and I referred to that earlier, between the various state governments and the commonwealth government sets out key parameters for NDIS worker screens for each state and territory, including who has to get an NDIS worker screening, so we are talking about a clear definition of who needs to be screened; how to work with self-managed NDIS participants; how to apply for a screen; and what the offences are for working without being screened. I think that is very important. We need to stipulate in the legislation that if a worker is not screened or if an employer who engages a worker does not subject that person to a proper screening process and ensure that they have the appropriate accreditation, then that matter should be dealt with, so we need to make sure there is proper enforcement in place. There is also the type of information to be checked, who should be considered automatically cleared or excluded and who should be presumed excluded. I think it is important to have these sorts of guidelines agreed to nationally so there is no confusion and we are not applying different standards in different states. The plan is basically for these standards to apply, on my understanding, by July 2021.

Some of the elements most likely a worker would need to be going through for the new NDIS worker screen will be similar in many ways to the working with children check, which I talked about earlier. Some of those common elements are the establishment of identity; checking of criminal history, including spent convictions and relevant disciplinary findings; and the principle that the rights of children and people with disability will be paramount in decision-making under this act.

The three categories for risk assessment of criminal and misconduct information are based on the classification of offences more commonly known as category A, category B or category C offences. Now, category A offences include violent crimes such as murder or rape, and Victoria currently has the strictest list of crimes considered to be category A, affording the best possible protection to children and people with disability. The checks will not classify all crimes the same, however, as they look at different things. For example, financial crimes are of great importance in assessing whether someone is appropriate to care for a person with a disability whereas financial crimes are not particularly relevant when making decisions about protecting children from harm. A ‘decision-maker’ relates to someone with powers to seek or share information as required, including the power to share information with other jurisdictions and—in the case of the NDIS worker screen—the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. It also provides for the applicant’s rights to procedural fairness and exceptional circumstances review. There is a fair bit of checks and balances and some descriptions about what the screening will entail, so it is a clear framework that has been put in place not just for Victoria but also for the national scheme.

The bill will also put in place a mechanism to enable information from the disability worker exclusion scheme, operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, to be shared and used to ensure that a person who applies for an NDIS worker screen can be excluded on the basis of disability worker exclusion scheme information. Any such exclusion will apply nationally. Now, the bill will achieve this by providing that when a person is listed on the disability worker exclusion list for an NDIS worker screen, that person must be risk assessed, providing for identifying information to be transferred to the worker screening unit so that the screening unit is able to ascertain whether an applicant for an NDIS worker screen has been previously excluded. So they are some of the examples.

In conclusion, the new worker screening framework established by this bill will provide a program that will assess the risk of employees and volunteers to children and people with disability by screening people who work with these potentially vulnerable people. It is important that we do not just cover full-time employees or paid employees; we need to cover volunteers as well. It is important that we get it right, and I am sure this bill goes a long way to making sure that we get it right so the legislative and operational model for this reform not only reinforces the commitment to the safety of the most vulnerable members of our community, it also ensures Victoria is well positioned for the future. I want to congratulate Minister Donnellan and the Andrews government in putting this bill together and making sure we achieve that aim. With these words I commend the bill to the house.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (16:09): It gives me some considerable pleasure to rise to speak on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. As members would be aware, I have quite a deep interest and I suppose a deep personal interest in disability services and in particular the rights of people with a disability. I think it first of all has to be said that the overwhelming majority of disability workers are outstanding human beings. They are extraordinary human beings. What they do every day is awe inspiring. It is awesome, it is amazing and it is almost beyond words what they do. I cannot congratulate them and thank them enough for the work that they do. However, there is a small group in the community who would take advantage of such a position to do some pretty dreadful and drastic things to people with disabilities, whether they be intellectual disabilities or physical disabilities or indeed both. These are the people that we must protect against. We must ensure that people with disabilities, who are amongst the most vulnerable people in our society, are protected at all times.

That is what the Worker Screening Bill 2020 is all about, and I am very pleased to say that this is something that all members of the house can agree on. We have come to a common view that the welfare and the protection of people with disabilities is something that should be paramount, as indeed it should. Indeed if this were not something that we could agree on, I think we would all have a lot of problems, to tell you the truth. I think there would be something very, very strange going on. So it is great that this bill is before the house. I might not use the word ‘great’ very often when referring to legislation from the government, or indeed anything to do with the government for that matter, but I will on this occasion, and I am very pleased to support this legislation today.

The national disability insurance scheme, I have to say, I was very sceptical of. I looked at the proposal for the NDIS around about seven or eight years ago and I thought, ‘How on God’s earth can this possibly work?’. It was a huge welfare program that was going to cost many billions of dollars, all centred in Canberra. I thought to myself, ‘This has got disaster written all over it’, and unfortunately there were times when I thought I was right. Some of the NDIS horror stories that I have heard over recent years have been pretty horrific, I have got to say, and the impact on families has been horrendous. But it has to be said that any program of this size—and let us face it, in Australian history there have not been too many; this is one out of the box—there are going to be problems. There will be hiccups, and hiccups in a program that affects so many people are going to create human problems because that is who you impact. The NDIS is about looking after people, so if there is a problem it is going to impact people, and it will impact those people with disabilities and also their families. That is a simple fact of life.

The reason I am speaking today is that I want to tell you my story—our story—of the NDIS. I cannot speak too highly of it. As I am sure many members of the house would be aware, we have a son with autism—pretty severe autism. He is now 19 years of age, and my wife and I had taken it upon ourselves to look after him pretty much on our own up until probably the last 18 months or so. This was not easy, I have to tell you. This was one of the hardest struggles certainly of my life, and I am sure of my wife’s life as well. God, it was hard. It was really, really hard. We got to the point where at one stage we did not quite know what we were going to do next. Fortunately, just in time, the NDIS came along and saved us, and I do mean saved us. What they have done is quite remarkable. Our 19-year-old son has three carers, and I would just like today to put on record my appreciation and my gratitude to Nick, to Bec and to Wil, who over the course of four days every week look after Liam. They are just amazing people. They are just sensational, and the impact that they have had on him and the impact that they have had on us is just extraordinary. I just wish that everybody who was in our position or a similar position to ours could have the benefit of such quality people as Nick, Bec and Wil, because, as I say, they really have had such a huge impact on our lives. I cannot quite put into words the gratitude that I have for them. They are exemplary human beings. I am so grateful for them and also very grateful for the NDIS.

As members would be aware, I am not a big fan of big welfare programs. I am not a big fan of government spending. I am not a big fan of splashing the taxpayers hard-earned, which a lot of governments like to do. Let us face it, they like to do that. We are currently into trillions of dollars of debt at the last look. But this particular program is worth the dollars. If we are going to spend money, let us spend it on something that is worthwhile, and on this occasion the feds have got it right. The federal government is right, and I believe justified, in spending the sort of money that they are spending. And it is taxpayers money; let us talk about that. We hear governments talking about ‘We’re giving this’ and ‘We’re giving that’—no. That is taxpayers money. What governments do, whether they be state or federal or local, is they give that money back to people, and that is a good thing. They are also directing it in certain ways too of course, and that is a matter of priorities. But I think the NDIS has already proven its worth.

It does still have its problems; I am not denying that for a moment. I speak to people every day who are banging their head against a brick wall, many of them, at the moment. I just say, ‘Keep going’ and I try to help them find their way through the maze, and it is difficult to do. It is a major challenge but it is worth it. It is worth getting to the other end, let me assure you. If anybody is reading this or listening to this today, let me assure you that it is worth the perseverance. As Winston Churchill once said, ‘When you are going through hell, keep going’, and that is the advice that I would give also to parents and to families who are having trouble with the NDIS at the moment.

Of course the NDIS does not just provide support for people with disabilities, it provides support for their families, and one of the biggest issues that I have seen and I have witnessed over a long period of time is the number of families, where they have children with disabilities, that actually break up. That creates another problem that they do not need. They just do not need it. It is hard enough when there are two, but when they split and go their separate ways, perhaps with the acrimony that many splits often create, they have got a problem that nobody needs. Governments, whether they be federal or state, really need to provide a valve that will release the pressure to help families stay together and to help couples stay together and provide the support that their children need, because of course once the family splits asunder the taxpayer has to come in to an even greater extent. Without both parents there it makes it very, very difficult, even more difficult, than what they had previously experienced. The NDIS has contributed enormously to keeping families together, and that is a good thing. That is something that I applaud. I know a lot of people with somebody in their family who has a disability; it is almost like they are all members of my family now. I know a lot of those people and we have been on journeys together, and some of those journeys have been pretty hellish.

The NDIS is something that probably should have happened a long time ago, because it has been so worthwhile and is so worthwhile in helping people through these difficult times. This legislation today ensures not just the continued success of the NDIS but also provides the sort of protections for not just children but adults as well from people who are pretty low, are pretty much undesirable and pretty much should be locked up and have the key thrown away. As far as I am concerned, anybody who takes advantage of somebody with a disability is the same sort of individual who hurts kids or who takes advantage of elderly people. They are just scum. I am not a great fan or a great supporter of capital punishment in every circumstance, but jeez I am tempted. I tell you what, in those situations I am sorely tempted.

Legislation such as this is needed. What a great pity it is needed, but it is needed to protect our kids however old they are, because let us face it—I think it was Dr Bach before who made the comment—you get to a certain age and a lot of parents are afraid to die, not because they are afraid of what is coming in the afterlife or whatever or being eaten by worms or whatever. What they are worried about is what is going to happen to their children after they have gone. Many an elderly parent has said to me over the years, ‘I cannot afford to die. What is going to happen to my son?’. Their son might be 60 or might be 70, but that son or that daughter is still the child, and in many instances pretty much acts like their child because they have not grown up in the way that we would expect a normal child to. It is very, very difficult. If the NDIS helps people who have got to a certain age have some peace as they come to the end of their lives, that in itself is a very good thing. That in itself is a major plus. But we must help the person with disability as well because we must always put the person before the disability. That is absolutely important because there are some people that regard people with disability as second- or third-rate citizens. That must and should never be the case. Disability should never, ever be a death sentence, no matter how old the child is. I support this bill. I commend it to the house, and I look forward to the Governor signing it into law.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:25): I rise to speak on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. I would like to begin by acknowledging the amazing work done by disability carers, allied health workers and case managers across the state. Most demonstrate compassion and professionalism, and we are grateful for their work. Unfortunately there are a select few who do not adhere to such principles and have proven to be a risk to our disabled population. The ongoing Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability has indicated that mistreatment is more common than we thought. There have currently been 1620 submissions received by the commission, as well as 5910 phone inquiries. These numbers make it clear that there are issues within the disability care sector. We have heard of some of the horrible acts committed against disabled members of society, and it is not acceptable. It is for this reason that I am going to support the bill. However, that does not mean that I do not have concerns about it.

My primary concern is the accessibility for those working in the sector. I have been told that there is a general shortage of workers in this field, and more regulation and overhead costs will only perpetuate this. There are two parts to this. Firstly, there is the issue of capacity. There are concerns in the industry that the requirement of such checks for existing disability support workers as well as prospective workers will create a large bottleneck, and as we emerge from lockdowns people are hungry for work and our disabled population will be excited to finally be out and about. It would be detrimental to see this process inhibited by red tape.

The second issue is for those who only work a very small number of hours yet would still require such screening, and I refer to those who work only a few hours a fortnight taking their clients for an ice cream, teaching them piano, doing arts and crafts or simply stopping in for some company. I know this is common amongst parents returning to work or university students trying to gain some experience and earn some extra dollars. If they are burdened by excess bureaucracy and costs, then they may steer away from an already understaffed industry. The government should continue to look at these issues and consider further measures to remove unnecessary barriers to workplace entry while maintaining protections for disabled people. Despite this, I see the health and wellbeing of those disabled members of our community as the priority. Negligent and abusive behaviour must be reduced. There is no room for mistreatment of the disabled, and the Liberal Democrats will support this bill.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:27): I also rise to speak in support of the Worker Screening Bill 2020, and can I just say from the beginning that it has been great today to hear the bipartisan contributions from all those in the chamber, from the opposition and crossbenchers, in support of this bill. It is always great when we can all come together in a bipartisan fashion on such an important issue when we seek to introduce legislation that seeks to protect those who are most vulnerable in our community. I would like to also congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing forward this important legislation, which continues to build—

Mr Finn: Luke’s in the wrong faction, isn’t he?

Mr TARLAMIS: Luke is doing a very good job as the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. The only people that talk about factions are you guys, especially at the moment when you have got your leadership challenge going on. If you want to talk about that, let us talk about that, but I will return to the bill—a very important bill. I congratulate the Attorney-General on bringing forward this important legislation, which continues to build upon the Andrews Labor government’s detailed policy work and reforms that reflect care, compassion and security for all Victorians.

This bill is about protecting Victorians who access services under the national disability insurance scheme by introducing a new worker screening scheme to create a single framework for potential workers in the NDIS and those who are likely to work with children. Victoria, along with every other jurisdiction, has signed up to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The purpose of this agreement and this bill to implement it is to provide a clear and consistent mechanism to prevent improper people from working with NDIS clients. The legislative and operational structures of the new screening framework are built upon the foundations of Victoria’s existing Working with Children Act 2005, which has been refined and improved since it commenced in 2006 and provides similar protections for children.

After consultation with the relevant Victorian government agencies, such as Industrial Relations Victoria, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, Victoria Police and VCAT, it was decided that rather than having two separate schemes it would make sense to create a new worker screening program to capture and consolidate both checks. The program will include establishment of identity, checking of criminal history and categorisation of offences and conduct into three risk assessment levels according to the seriousness of identified conduct. Checks will be undertaken according to similar but discrete tests for disqualifying offences, category A; offences leading to a presumption of exclusion from work, category B; and other conduct, category C. The creation of the new worker screening framework will also make it easier to add additional checks and screens for other industries into the future.

If you reflect upon Australia’s history both early and recent, it is clear that Labor governments, whether they be state or federal, have consistently and proudly sought to safeguard the rights of children and the vulnerable. It was the Bracks Labor government that introduced the Working with Children Act 2005. That legislation introduced a safeguard for children by establishing a process to screen the identity and criminal history of people who work or seek to work with them. In order to protect children we must set criteria for work that relates to children. Children have every right to be safe wherever they are, and it is our responsibility to do all we can to ensure that they are. It is a profound trust that we place in people who do work or volunteer with or around children, and programs like the working with children check ensure that this trust is not blind.

We all know how amazing these volunteers and workers are. We have all seen firsthand and have many stories of the amazing work that they do, the time that they put in, the effort and care that they give, how they go above and beyond and the difference they make in everybody’s lives in the way that they care for children. It has a profound impact and it really does change people’s lives. It is very difficult to explain if you have not experienced it firsthand, but many people today in their contributions have spoken at length about many of those examples and I thank them for sharing those personal experiences.

It is an important and critical function of the working with children check that we have these checks and balances in place, and it is important that the state government takes appropriate steps to have these checks and balances in place. The bill we are debating today seeks to simply maintain and advance many of the very significant elements that were part of the Working with Children Act 2005. In particular, as the minister said in her second-reading speech, the bill provides for the continued and uninterrupted operation of the working with children check. People who currently hold a working with children check will not be affected in any substantial way and will simply renew their existing check as required in the normal course. New applicants for the working with children check will also apply in the same way as current applicants do.

Additionally, in recognition of the fact that some people may have to get both a working with children check and an NDIS worker screen, the bill provides that no fee is payable for holders of an NDIS clearance who also apply for a working with children check. This ensures that rather than just providing an exemption from a working with children check, all workers are appropriately screened for their particular role. It will also ensure that there is not an unfair financial burden placed on applicants. Further, it means that notifications to employers about the person’s working with children check status will continue, maintaining existing safeguards in relation to people working with children.

Similar to the Bracks Labor government it was the federal Gillard Labor government who introduced the NDIS, with the former Prime Minister being supported by Bill Shorten and Jenny Macklin to present and help legislate the insurance scheme. This landmark reform was a one-in-100-year policy that was supposed to change the outcomes of the lives of people with a disability for decades to come. For tens of thousands of Victorians it was everything; it was hope and it was the vision of a future in which they would get something better than they had, and for many it has changed their lives. Many have had positive outcomes from it, but there are many that are still struggling with the system and trying to find their way to navigate through it.

Unfortunately we have seen those in Canberra in recent times quite disappointingly seek to use those funds as a means to fabricate a surplus, which is hopefully something that we will not see going forward. It is very disappointing, because if there are funds that are being made available for services for vulnerable Victorians through the NDIS, they should be used for those services, not used to prop up a false surplus.

During my time as a member for South Eastern Metropolitan Region my staff and I have had the privilege to speak to so many wonderful families living right across my electorate. Although the conversations can lead to many different topics, quite often they include sharing many different experiences, including the frustration of loved ones—family, friends, members of extended family and neighbours—and heart-wrenching stories of experiences that they have had with the NDIS service. The NDIS service that the Gillard Labor government looked at delivering was all about services, opportunity, hope, equality, fairness and equity. At the heart of the NDIS that the Gillard government envisaged was allowing participants the ability to exercise a greater level of control over their lives. The NDIS market-based structure brings a certain level of risk, a risk that needs to be protected against when dealing with potentially vulnerable people. The government needs to step in and provide confidence in the system, confidence that people with a disability are relying on, and ensure that people can live their best lives.

That is why this bill is so important. It provides the confidence in the processes and procedures that will make and keep people safe. People living with a disability should never have to worry about abuse of any kind from people who work for them and provide care to them. Nobody doubts that a job with the highest responsibility should come with strict safeguards, and there is probably no higher responsibility than working with vulnerable people. That is what this bill is about and it is why the Andrews Labor government in this term of Parliament has had to backfill some of the underspend by the federal government. It is why the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, Luke Donnellan, has been working so hard in this area, with funding and legislation to protect the most vulnerable and to try and deliver the services that those most vulnerable and those with a disability need so that they can get the support that they need each and every day.

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it is that it is important to look after those in our society and in our community who are most vulnerable. It is something that goes to the heart of Labor values, who we are and why Labor governments truly make a difference in this country, in this state and to the most vulnerable people in our community and people with a disability. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (16:38): I rise today to make a brief contribution on this bill. Whilst it will be brief, this subject is nonetheless of extreme importance to me, as it no doubt is to everyone else in this chamber and indeed in this Parliament. What we have seen previously in the awful history of abuse, neglect and exploitation in our state and around Australia and the world is a series of abuses of power—of people, communities and cohorts which are vulnerable to that exploitation. We see that with children. We see that in particular with children from vulnerable communities, whose voice, whose power, whose capacity to make complaints and to have their complaints heard, investigated and indeed become the subject of reform and improvement go unnoticed. What we have seen for too many decades is children and indeed people with disabilities suffer time and time again avoidable abuse and exploitation. This abuse can be of a sexual nature, it can be of a physical nature, it can occur in financial circumstances and it can occur in situations of neglect.

There are so many ways that abuses of power can manifest. This is why the working with children check legislation was so important to introduce in 2005. It is also why, following the Suffer the Little Children report, the disability services commissioner and the children’s commissioner in Victoria have continued to work assiduously to identify and to report instances of abuse, as well as conducting own-motion investigations. What we need to do is continue to improve the system which regulates behaviour, which clamps down on inappropriate conduct and which stamps out the capacity for people with the very worst of intentions who are wilfully blind to the needs, to the rights and to the dignity of children and vulnerable people—people living with disabilities and people who are dependent upon others to do the right thing—to go about exploiting those needs.

We have, through the introduction of a working with children check system, been able to create a number of checks which are intended to provide a measure of confidence not just to children and their carers and guardians and kinship networks but also in government support processes, which are about making decisions in the best interests of children. It is now of utmost importance that we seize this opportunity through this bill to create systemic improvement in the area of disability support services and the way in which quality assurance in conduct and behaviour underpins a culture of zero tolerance of exploitation of people with disabilities.

The harmonisation of two schemes into one framework will also mean that we reduce duplication and increase the level of consistency in the way in which checks are undertaken. It will also build upon the aspirational commitments that we have, that the commonwealth has and which other jurisdictions have around stamping out child abuse to the best extent that we possibly can. However, nobody is pretending that this bill will stop the problem. This bill is part of a necessary landscape of change that must take place across sectors where consumers, clients, patients and indeed participants are better safeguarded against exploitation of their vulnerable status. Time and time again we see that voices are so soft or so suppressed as to go unheard, and we see that with all too often tragic, tragic consequences.

I cannot imagine how difficult it is for Minister Luke Donnellan to do his job, I could not imagine how difficult it was for ministers for children and young people to do their work and I cannot imagine the toll that it takes upon guardians, upon workers in child protection and upon others in the sector in disability services and support and in the reporting and mandatory reporting frameworks in this state to face some of the awful truths that we as parliamentarians are so often buffered and protected from.

I am a child of a child protection worker, and I heard over the dinner table growing up some of the most appalling stories told about the stress and trauma of a parent who did not have the resources to be able to process the horror of what she endured on a regular basis. I know all too well from another parent who was a GP the scourge of abuse of people with disabilities and of children within our community. You do not need these familial backgrounds to understand the reality of this situation, because all you need to do is open up a newspaper, all you need to do is read the reports of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and all you need to do is open up the webpage of the children’s commissioner or the disability services commissioner to understand just how far we have to go.

This bill does a lot. It achieves a lot in sending a powerful message that in fact people who are vulnerable within our communities deserve every measure of protection that we can provide by creating frameworks that do not allow those with ill intent and those who would do them harm to have even the remotest possibility of contact with them or proximity to them. What we need to do is continue this work. What we need to do is hold every government to account in every way until we have done everything we can possibly do to safeguard those who need and deserve our protection.

This work will never be done. It will never be done because there will always be people within our communities who in fact do not see the rights of children or people with disabilities as deserving of protection, who prioritise their own conduct, their own perversity, their own wilful disregard for the rights of others over people under their control or people to whom they might apply a differential sense of power in a relationship of dependence. These are tragedies which we cannot afford to ignore, however. This is work which we cannot afford ever to neglect.

We owe it to every child who has suffered abuse, we owe it to every person with a disability who has ever been the subject of feeling insecure, vulnerable, exploited or abused, we owe it to those who are here and to those who have died by suicide because the trauma was too much, we owe it to those children and those people with disabilities who are yet to come who will be born and will grow up long after we have all left this Parliament to do everything we possibly can and we owe it to the improvement of our society over time to have these difficult, uncomfortable, often horrifying and frustrating conversations about why it is that this sort of behaviour persists. We also owe it to workers in these sectors to make sure that they are properly resourced and supported to move through the trauma associated with reporting and enforcing rights that are violated in these situations. This is in fact where worker screening will alleviate some of that pressure by in fact undertaking some form of preventative measure so that people who might otherwise be part of a person’s enforcement duties and their case loads and who may in fact lead to tragic consequences are never allowed near children or people with disabilities who are relying upon them to do the right thing.

I know other people have spoken at length about the regulatory framework which has operated in Victoria and indeed the commonwealth and which has been the subject of extensive investigation and inquiry at a number of royal commissions. What I do want to do is to underscore, however, the commitment of this Parliament—and I do not think that I am stepping over the line by speaking for everyone here—in saying that we must be united in this particular issue and our commitment to ameliorating trauma wherever we possibly can, that we must be committed to making sure that wherever possible we reform and refine our processes to hold people to the highest standards that we would expect to be in place for ourselves or for our children or for our families or for those we love the most in the world. It is incumbent upon us, all of us, no matter which party we represent, no matter what our own personal standards might be, to support and to endorse every step which makes lives easier, which prevents wrongdoing in the most vile of circumstances, which prevents and identifies and calls out the proliferation of exploitation which exists here and now in this contemporary world and which has in fact existed for as long as records have been kept.

So we have come a long way, but we have always got more to do, and we need to use this particular bill as a starting point for the next step and the step after that and the step after that. To that end I think it is worth acknowledging the work that has been done in implementing mandatory reporting, in undertaking royal commissions, in the efforts associated with developing the first working with children check frameworks in the state. These have happened because of leaders from across the political divide around the political spectrum. These issues touch all of us, and these issues require us to unite and also to put aside difference in the name of a good which we can all agree is of paramount importance. So in commending the bill to the house today I want to acknowledge everyone who has been part of these conversations and these discussions.

I want to make sure that it does not go unsaid that we have a lot of work to do within our institutions, in particular our religious institutions, to identify and to call out exploitation and abuse, that we have a lot of work to do to make sure that the culture of silence, the veil of secrecy, is not allowed to exist and that we do whatever we can within a regulatory setting as governments, state and federal, to make sure that rules are in place that send a clear message around zero tolerance. I want to make sure that we continue to use bills like this and legislative processes like this to speak out about institutional abuse of people who are vulnerable.

I grieve for those who are victims and survivors of abuse, whether they are people with disabilities or children or whether there is an intersectionality in the vulnerabilities of people who might otherwise have been spared the misery and trauma but for something as simple and straightforward as a working with children check. I look forward to governments of various persuasions having the courage to implement working with children checks more broadly across the board. I look forward to there being a very clear indication that anyone who will have any contact with a child who is not their own is required in fact to demonstrate that they are fit and proper for the purpose of interacting with that child. I think that that is the very least that we can do, because without taking measures like this we are not doing everything that we possibly can. We are not in fact making sure that we have exhausted every avenue to protect those who deserve our intervention, to make sure that we send a very positive message, a very clear message, that parliaments are not turning away from this issue. So we have got much work to do.

I commend this bill to the house. I thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions on what is a very difficult topic, and I know that we stand united in the way in which we have together endorsed a process which builds upon what has already been done and what we are yet to achieve. I look forward again to the speedy passage of this particular bill and thank everyone within the disability sectors, within the child protection areas and within the sectors that interface with children and with people with disabilities on a regular basis for all of the tireless work that they do in calling out behaviour which should not occur. We need to honour your work. We need to honour the effort that you put in on behalf of your clients, on behalf of the communities that you represent, to do our bit as governments to create a framework which reduces your workloads, which reduces your trauma and your distress at being in these environments where abuse occurs and to make sure that wherever possible we are demonstrating the same good faith in our institutions and our processes as you do every day when you go to work. I commend this bill to the house with thanks to everyone who has got to their feet in support of it today.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:53): I rise today to support the bill. The object of this bill is to provide for the screening of persons working with or caring for children or providing supports or services to persons with a disability under the national disability insurance scheme and to repeal the Working with Children Act 2005, because this bill will assist in protecting children from sexual and physical harm by providing for screening of persons who work with and care for children. Protecting children and the disabled and the most vulnerable in the community is a platform that I was elected on. In Western Metropolitan Region there are some of the most vulnerable people in Victoria, and within my region there are many people who work with people with disabilities and are currently trying to fill out all the paperwork for the NDIS. I had my niece working in my office. She previously worked for the NDIS. In the time she was in my office she gave me full and frank information around what is working with the NDIS and where the gaps are.

I do believe that the federal government in their wisdom have sought to do something that all Australians want, which is to look after our most vulnerable communities. But there are always gaps. With all the good intentions there are obviously always gaps to be found, and sometimes the state government and other times councils normally have to try to fill those gaps. And when a council tries to fill that gap it is actually spending the council rates on Meals on Wheels and making sure that those workers are going into those families’ homes in those immediate areas. It is time that the state government also relieved some of these pressures off local councils. But also I do understand why we have had to step in in this place and make sure that we—with the federal government, with all of their good intentions—continue to protect our most vulnerable, our children and the disabled within our community.

So I am rising today to commend this state government. After, obviously, the report that was received in 2016 I am pleased to actually be here in 2020 to be part of making sure that we continue to protect children, we continue to protect our most vulnerable and we continue to protect the disabled in our community, because this is something that all Victorians want. Especially within my Western Metropolitan Region there are so many people of need that for many years have not had the attention that they deserve, but I am so pleased to see that we have made it a priority to actually care for and to protect our children and to look after our aged as well as the carers and the disabled. It is something that I know that my community in Western Metro are very pleased that this state government has made a priority. I thank the government, and I am pleased that from all the speakers who have contributed to the debate today it would seem that we are all here in chorus. I commend this bill.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16:58): I was listening to all of the contributions, and I have got to say this is a fantastic day to be a member of Parliament. I have heard in some of the contributions that there might be some gaps in this bill. Dr Cumming and Mr Grimley earlier mentioned some of those, and I think Mr Finn did, and I think that is right. But I take the point that Ms Shing made, and that is that when I first came in here in my inaugural speech I spoke about inequality and the Sisyphean task that it is. It is a never-ending journey that we are on, because as soon as we think we have eradicated it we will find something else—and often what we do is we look for the perfect and it stops the good. This bill may not be perfect. It may not address every issue that confronts people with disabilities—and I am sure it does not, not by a long way—but it has a go. It takes us forward. It advances the issues. It advances the causes. It puts another layer of protections in place for people in our communities right across the board, whether it be in Western Metropolitan Victoria or in Northern Victoria, my electorate, who need us in this place and in other parliaments throughout the country to focus on these issues and do the best that we can to put in place the building blocks that continue to advance the issues.

I want to congratulate Mr Finn on his contribution and telling us about the personal journey that he and his wife and son, Liam—and no doubt their daughters as well—have been on and the wonderful tribute that he paid to the disability workers who each and every day get out of bed and go to work with a smile. They do the best that they can for people who need their support, and it cannot be an easy job—it can’t be—to do that every day. They front up every day and they put their best foot forward because they just have this enormous capacity within their hearts. I do not know where they find it. I am here; I am not doing their work. I do not know where they find those things, but they do. They reach down into those places where I think we all wish we could go internally, and these people go to work every day and do their absolute best for the people in our communities of whom, if they were not provided with those sorts of supports, one wonders what might happen to them. So thank you, Mr Finn, for sharing your personal story, because it was touching but also highlighted in my mind that this bill is not perfect. I doubt that any bill would be perfect, but it takes us forward. It advances the issues. It offers those protections for those people who so desperately need it, and it allows us also, through the contribution that Mr Finn made, to celebrate those people who day after day in this sector go to work. I want to congratulate not only this Parliament for what I am sure will be the unanimous passage of this bill but all of the parliaments around this country for coming together and working together.

We can all criticise things like the national disability insurance scheme (NDIS), and we will, but it is from a perspective of: we want it to be better. We can see the flaws, but nonetheless at its core it is focused on the right things. Are we spending enough money in the right areas? Probably not. Do we need to get better at that? Absolutely we do. And it is just a bit heartwarming, I think, as a member of Parliament, whether it is in this place or in any other jurisdiction, that there are so many of us around the nation that are working so closely together to try and improve the lives of people who have a disability and, just as importantly, those people who care for them, their families.

I have been particularly blessed with a couple of very healthy children and a very healthy grandson. I know many, many others are not as fortunate, and we see that as we go around our respective electorates and we visit many, many places—in my own electorate, places like the Swan Hill Specialist School or what is now the Echuca Twin Rivers Specialist School. I mentioned in a members statement just a couple of weeks ago that the Echuca Twin Rivers School, which was the combination of two previous primary schools into one, had a third arm added to it recently, and that was the Echuca Specialist School. The kids have now moved into this one big school. I had the great privilege of visiting with them only about 10 days ago and met a couple of the kids—out the front, socially distanced and all of that sort of thing—and Paul, the principal, and a couple of teachers. Just hearing the kids, you could hear the excitement in their voices about what we are able to do in bringing them together with what we euphemistically call ‘normal children’, whatever that is.

We have now got a school of all abilities in Echuca, and there are a full gamut of kids with a full range of abilities in that school. It is just such a wonderful thing. It really is a wonderful thing to be able to come here today and speak on a bill of this nature—knowing that it is not perfect, knowing that no bill that we ever bring to this Parliament on this issue will ever be perfect, and they will never be perfect because each and every time we think we have dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’ there will be something else. There will be something else because we will set ourselves the challenge to continue to look for every avenue we can to support people in these circumstances.

The bill is not perfect because we know that there will be some that will slip through the net. We can focus on those people, we can concentrate on those and we can try and develop public policy for the lowest common denominator. I hope, like Mr Finn, that when those people are uncovered, when we discover who they are, when we discover what they are doing—and these sorts of things hopefully will pull that cloak back much more quickly than otherwise—they feel the full wrath of the law and the disdain of the rest of the community, because they are the scum of the earth. They are terrible individuals. They deserve no sympathy from us, and I hope that this bill in some way, shape or form sends a bit of a shudder through some of those people.

We know in our hearts that 99 per cent of people who work in this sector do so with the best of intentions, with a great deal of humanity—humanity that, as I said earlier, I wish I could reach down and find in myself, because it is such an admirable quality that they bring to society. They are not the highest paying jobs in the world—far from it. You would think that people with that sort of dedication and that sort of application could probably apply themselves to any type of endeavour, any type of working endeavour or any type of education endeavour and put themselves in a position where they could probably earn, I do not know, five, 10, 20 times the amount of money that they probably do in this type of work. It is probably the job satisfaction for them. I do not know what it is, but whatever it is that they find in themselves to be able to do this work, we cannot thank them anywhere near enough.

And we cannot thank enough the parents and the carers, the family carers, who provide that support. Mr Finn talked about his extended family and the expanded family that he now has—so many people in his life, the parents and families of kids with disabilities and how they form that support network for each other. They rely on each other to navigate the NDIS, which is a difficult beast to navigate, as I think most of us can attest, but they do such a wonderful job of providing that support for them.

I am going to leave my remarks there. Suffice to say, I am really proud of this Parliament. I want to really commend the Attorney-General. I want to really commend Minister Donnellan for his fantastic work. He does such a power of good every day that he goes to work. Ms Bath talked about one of her constituents and the troubles that they were facing with their daughter, I think Adelaide is her name, and Mr Donnellan rolled his sleeves up and dealt with that expeditiously. He certainly gets my gratitude and my thanks for his hard work. It is not a perfect bill—never is, never will be—but gee, I am so proud of this Parliament. This will take us further down the road than we were yesterday, and that can only be a good thing.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:11): I too have very much, for want of a better word, enjoyed the discussions here today. They were very much from the heart and very deeply felt. It is hard not to be moved by them and the sincerity that has been shown across the chamber. The collaborative nature of the discussion is really I think what perhaps drives—I do not want to speak for other people—a lot of us to actually get into this kind of service to community role. At the end of the day, if we can actually make the life of someone else better in some way and provide the most vulnerable in particular with more protection, more support and more safeguards, then that has certainly got to be a good thing. I consider that a reward for all of us on a personal level. I am not commending us. I am just saying that that gives us some sense of satisfaction, knowing that we are doing something right for the community—and hopefully more than just something; many things right—to serve the community and the various electorates that we respect and at the end of the day love. I think we do love them. I am probably getting a little bit emotive there, but I think on some level the fact that we put in the time and the effort that we do is because we actually feel that sense of connectivity to the areas where we live. I think that is important and that drives us to keep pushing for better and better reforms.

I am proud of the fact that Labor does have a great record of safeguarding kids and vulnerable people. It was a Bracks Labor government—and this has been discussed a lot today—that introduced the Working with Children Act 2005, and I take some comfort that it could be that literally thousands of kids have been protected as a result of that. That gives you some comfort along the way knowing that the legislation did its best to protect children and actually did achieve and has achieved that outcome along the way, because that is certainly what it is all about.

Obviously this bill today is really about the next step in extending those protections, because as has been said today, we have got to keep pushing the boundaries in terms of finding better and more secure ways to safeguard the most vulnerable in our community, not least those people with disabilities. As we all know, unfortunately the kinds of hideous acts that have been and continue to be perpetuated occur because of the ability of some to find circuitous ways to avoid being detected. Ultimately there are innocent people—innocent children and people with disabilities—who have suffered and will into the future. But the more children and the more people with disabilities that we can protect along the way through this kind of reformative legislation the better.

In concurring with others here today, having everyone on board and everyone congruent in terms of fighting hard to eliminate the loopholes and vulnerabilities in the legislation and to maintain the legislative protections themselves is critical when we are looking at overcoming and offsetting the secretive undercurrent or the secretive behaviour that lends itself to innocent children and people with disabilities being in harm’s way.

I know that even when I have visited places in the electorate—pre COVID, I must say—with carers or with teachers at specialist schools who are looking after children or young adults with disabilities, I see just how hard the person, depending on the nature of the disability, has to work even just to communicate and just to express even one or two words, whether it be through modern technology or whether it be through another expression or another form. And I see the incredible patience it takes on both sides, from the carer or the teacher and from the person with the disability. You can just see how fragile and vulnerable that space is and how, for want of a better word, easy it is to exploit that situation. But I would like to think that with this kind of legislative reform we are making it harder and harder for those kinds of very vulnerable situations to unfold and making sure that there is always an objective aspect in terms of the way that we conduct caring and other operations to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent harm coming to children and to those with disabilities.

As Mr Gepp was saying before, I do not want to say it is impossible, but we have to strive to iron out all the vulnerable situations where this could occur. That is probably a little bit of a lofty aim, but we have to aim for it and we have to fight hard and we have to keep fighting and keep going, I would say, because the nature of human beings is they do have frailties and they do have vulnerabilities and so we need to be able to keep working hard to ensure that we are looking out for all possible contingencies where people who are vulnerable in the community may be exploited.

What certainly sounds very sensible with this bill is having a new, single framework of combined screening programs promoting consistency in both programs over time. I know at the same time that the bill has been structured to reflect the needs of both individual screens, ensuring that the standards for the individual programs are readily identifiable. There are indeed nuances for protections around children versus protections around adults, although there would be considerable overlap in terms of the overall protection that is required.

It is great that there has been such significant collaboration. I know that the Council of Australian Governments endorsed the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was a response to the need identified in the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework for a nationally consistent system for worker screening, because obviously the abuse is not isolated to one state, not one country. It unfortunately has been a part of human nature for centuries, since time began, so this is something that we need to be vigilant with. Fundamentally the intergovernmental agreement sets the key parameters for national disability insurance scheme worker screens for each state and territory, including who has to get an NDIS worker screen, how to work with self-managed NDIS participants, how to apply for a screen, what the offences should be for working without a screen, the types of information to be checked, who should be considered automatically cleared or excluded and who should be presumed excluded. It goes without saying, but I take comfort in having to do a working with children check. I am prepared to do it because it gives me comfort knowing other people have to do it. We are all part of the solution. Obviously we are building further and further with these protections, but it certainly brings me comfort knowing that these are very, very strict requirements indeed in terms of being able to achieve the purposes of the legislation.

Whilst the two worker checks will be separate, the new NDIS worker screen will be similar in many ways to the working with children check. These include common elements such as establishment of identity; checking of criminal history, including spent convictions; and relevant disciplinary findings; the principle that the rights of children and people with disability will be paramount in decisions made under the act; and three categories for risk assessment of criminal and misconduct information based on the classification of offences, more commonly known as category A, category B or category C offences.

Category A offences include violent crime, such as murder or rape, and Victoria currently has the strictest list of crimes considered to be category A, affording the best possible protection to children and people with a disability. I do recall Mr Grimley talking about wanting more and more checks et cetera, and I do not mean to paraphrase his words—his words should be from him and uttered from his space—but just to say that certainly this is not taken lightly and hence that is part of the reason why Victoria does afford the best possible protection to children and people with disability under category A. The checks will not classify all crimes the same, however, as they look at different things. For example, financial crimes are of great importance, and I know this was discussed earlier by Ms Terpstra, in assessing whether somebody is appropriate for the care of a person with a disability, whereas financial crimes are not particularly relevant when talking about protecting children from harm. I think that makes a lot of sense.

I should point out that the new legislation will not operate exactly the same way as the old working with children check operated. Some of the changes include ensuring bodies are appropriately described and defined to reflect their role in NDIS worker screens. We know that police officers are exempt from obtaining a working with children check, and this is because they are considered to be classed as fit and proper persons but also because they have already had to undergo extensive background checks, including criminal history checks, in order to become a police officer in the first place. So again we can see the logic and the rationale behind the way the bill has been drafted. This is similar to the way that teachers are qualified to work with children through the Victorian Institute of Teaching, just as an example.

The other thing that I was wanting to speak to was just to say that information sharing is fundamental to support our commitment to ensuring there is no diminution of safeguards. The Victorian government has committed to ensuring there is no diminution of safeguards during the transition to the NDIS in Victoria, because that would be a travesty in and of itself. The whole purpose of the NDIS is to enhance support and to make life better for people with disabilities, so to facilitate some sort of leeway in terms of safeguards there would actually be counterproductive in this process. So to bridge the gap between agreeing to create the new NDIS workers screen and it coming into force the government established the disability worker exclusion scheme to operate in the meantime, and that gives me some comfort as well. This has meant that existing levels of protection have been maintained during the transitional phase prior to the commencement of the NDIS worker screen.

In concluding I would just like to say that I am actually really inspired by this reform. I think it is a no-brainer; it is something that absolutely has to happen. We have to keep striving hard to protect the most vulnerable in our community. I thank all the speakers today for their beautiful contributions.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:24): I would like to begin by thanking members for their contributions on the Worker Screening Bill 2020. This is a bill that will give effect to Victoria’s commitment to the Intergovernmental Agreement on Nationally Consistent Worker Screening for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I am pleased to say that it has been a very straightforward debate with cross-partisan support for the bill. Importantly we remain on track to meet the current deadline to have this scheme in place early next year. We all recognise how important it is that people with disability be able to have full confidence in the people who work with them. The debate has reflected how cohesively states and territories and all parties have worked together in implementing this important reform. This bill will establish a new national disability insurance scheme worker screening program to give them that confidence. It will provide a thorough screen for all people who work within the NDIS and will look at a range of criminal conduct through the background checks. Additionally, it will allow for information sharing with the disability worker registration scheme so as to allow an even more comprehensive review of potential workers. The bill will not affect the operation of the working with children check, but it will move it into a new legislative framework.

A number of matters have been raised that I would like to respond to. In the other place Mr Bull made note of the operation of the Disability Services Safeguards Act 2018, and whether there was any ongoing role for DHHS in very complex cases. This goes to a related aspect of the bill which of course is the operation of the NDIS. While all existing Victorian state clients have now transitioned to the NDIS, the Department of Health and Human Services is continuing to operate the intensive support team, which currently comprises 13 staff. The intensive support team has been in operation since April 2017 and continues to provide support and guidance for Victorians with a disability who have complex needs, particularly those with mental health or disability-related health needs. This is available to both existing NDIS participants and prospective participants to assist with access, planning and service arrangements. Four staff in the intensive support team were funded in 2020–21 to support Victorian NDIS participants who require assistance due to COVID-related risk factors, including incident case management support and to work with the National Disability Insurance Agency to ensure continuity of disability care and support arrangements.

One issue which was raised was alleged duplication of the NDIS code of conduct and the Disability Worker Commission’s code of conduct. While this is a matter that relates more closely to the operation of the NDIS as opposed to falling strictly within the scope of this bill, it is an important issue and I will address this briefly. Victoria has a proud history of having the highest level of quality and safeguards of anywhere else in the country. We also have been very clear with Victorians from the outset that we would not reduce the level of safeguards due to the transition to the NDIS. The Disability Worker Commission’s code of conduct is the same as the NDIS code of conduct to avoid confusion. The current law ensures that all Victorian disability workers are subject to the same code of conduct irrespective of whether they are providing NDIS services or not. Otherwise disability workers could be held to a different set of safeguards for people receiving disability services. If the codes were not the same, it would also create gaps in the system. For example, a worker could be banned by the NDIS quality and safeguards commissions as they have been found unsafe to provide disability services but could be investigated by the Disability Worker Commission and prevented from providing non-NDIS services such as through the TAC.

Additionally, I understand Ms Maxwell had a range of questions that relate to the operation of the working with children checks and that the Attorney-General has addressed these questions with Ms Maxwell, but I would like to thank her in particular for her ongoing advocacy in this space. We all agree that the safety of children has to be one of the most important things we deal with as members of Parliament.

Mr Grimley raised an issue around why the working with children checks is not a no clearance, no start system, and in response I say a person who has been charged with the most serious offences for the purposes of a working with children check is prohibited from working with children until such time as they are given a check, if they are given one at all. In the case of sexual offences referred to by Mr Grimley, the working with children check is in fact a no clearance, no start. It is an offence for such a person to work with children. Schedule 5 of the bill includes those offences and matters that result in a no clearance, no start for certain people. Of course not everyone has a criminal record, and it is important to remember that the working with children check, important as it is, is only one tool we have to protect children.

I take this opportunity to again thank all members who have contributed to the second-reading debate, and I do commend this bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (17:30): I move, by leave:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.

Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms SYMES:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:32): It gives me great pleasure to rise to make a contribution in regard to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020. This is a matter that is very close to my heart as a former and proud union official. Having worked for the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, I know how important these reforms are in terms of giving excellent safe patient care. The nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios that were brought in earlier are a significant reform and ensure that the best quality of care can be given to people in our public hospital systems, and it has been fantastic. I know, having talked to many nurses and midwives who have worked in the public hospital system, you can see the difference that it makes in the quality of care that is being given. As I said, it is a matter that is particularly close to my heart, and it gives me great pleasure to rise to make a contribution in regard to this.

The Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring Victorians have access to high quality and safe health care. It is critically important. Enshrining nurse- and midwife-to-patient staffing ratios into law in 2015 is a proud achievement of our government and one we remain deeply committed to. Evidence demonstrates that higher staffing numbers lead to not only more engaged workforces but also better patient care and outcomes.

In 2018 ahead of the election we took those commitments further by promising that a re-elected Andrews Labor government would protect and strengthen ratios in two stages. This would include funding for an additional 1100 new nurses and midwives over these two stages to support the delivery of a comprehensive package of ratio improvements in our hospitals. The first phase of those amendments to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015 passed by this Parliament in March 2019 represented the first time that nurse- and midwife-to-patient ratios had been meaningfully reviewed since their beginning in 2000. It removed the outdated methodology on most shifts so that in most circumstances nurses and midwives were no longer required to carry workloads that could at times be 50 per cent greater than the ratio set out in the act. It also established new ratios in key clinical practice areas. It was backed up with the funding required to deliver 600 additional nurses and midwives employed in public hospitals across Victoria.

The bill today delivers on phase 2 of our election commitment. It delivers further improvements to see a further 500 nurses and midwives employed in our public health system, from our busiest metropolitan hospitals to our rural services. We have invested $50 million to create the Nursing and Midwifery Workforce Development Fund, which is already attracting record numbers of applications across the state. This fund is creating training opportunities and providing scholarships for nurses and midwives to further specialise so they can fill new positions that will be created. It is expanding the existing registered nurse and midwife graduate program, which is so critically important, and for the first time establishing a statewide enrolled nurse graduate program. This will employ 400 enrolled nurses over the next four years, with 100 of these positions available to TAFE graduates.

The diploma of nursing is one of the most popular priority TAFE courses being offered as part of our government’s free TAFE initiative. It means more Victorians will be able to study a diploma of nursing for free at TAFE and then start working as enrolled nurses as soon as they graduate. The fund is also providing up to 400 postgraduate scholarships for current nurses and midwives to upgrade their skills, 400 places in programs such as the postgraduate midwifery employment program, as well as refresher programs for 800 nurses and midwives who are currently registered but not practising so they can re-enter the workforce. It will also include $10 million dedicated to rural and regional applicants so that people can study a diploma of nursing at their local TAFE and then work at their local rural or regional hospitals. We know a very significant achievement was recently ticked off the list, I guess you could say, by our former health minister Jenny Mikakos in delivering a very significant hospital—Mildura Base Hospital, I believe it was—back into public hands. That was something that was Jeffed a long time ago, so it pretty much took the better part of 20-plus years to deliver. But it was obviously very well received by that local community and is something that this government is proud to have delivered on as well.

Some in the chamber may not be aware, but one of the things that was critical in the nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios was the idea of working out workloads based on a formula, which was about how many patients and how many nurses. There was a rounding methodology that came with the bill. The bill will complete the rounding methodology across the remaining shifts and settings to create consistency in staffing workload determinations throughout the act. This will mean improved staffing in residential aged care and rehabilitation wards, which as we know are so critically important. We have just seen with the COVID-19 pandemic that, for example, private aged care does not have nurse-to-patient ratios. Yet we know that in publicly operated aged-care homes that the state operates we do in fact have those nurse-to-patient ratios operating and they do make a critical difference.

I recall when I was working at the nurses union having a look at the various pieces of legislation and in particular these nurse-to-patient ratios, and it became apparent quite quickly that, depending on the different types of hospital wards, whether it was an ICU ward or whether it was a general ward or other places in hospitals, there were different ratios in place. As I said, this last raft of improvements will bring in improved staffing ratios in residential aged care and in rehabilitation wards. It is very important. As I said, it continues to deliver on our previous election commitments in this regard.

In terms of in-charge arrangements, staffing numbers will also increase through the provision of an in-charge nurse or midwife across a range of settings, particularly on night shift, to reduce clinical risk, improve patient safety and ensure patient and staff wellbeing. Of course what you want to do is ensure that you reduce any clinical risk in any patient care setting, because unfortunately it is a fact of life that mistakes do happen, but when you have got nurse-to-patient ratios they in fact reduce the risk, so they are very important. These arrangements will apply to medical and surgical wards, birthing suites, postnatal wards, special care nurseries, geriatric evaluation management wards and larger emergency departments with short-stay observation units.

Our smaller regional hospitals will also benefit from additional after-hours coordinators, acknowledging the increasing complexity of coordinating a range of services in these hospitals. This acknowledges the requirement for additional staff to manage the increasing complexity often associated with the coordination of mixed services in small rural areas and services. This will apply specifically to level 4 hospitals that operate a nominating birth suite and/or emergency department with greater than 2500 presentations per annum. Just by way of example, these include health services such as the Colac Area Health service, the Kyneton District Health Service—I know Mary-Anne Thomas in the other place, the member for Macedon, will be very glad to hear about that—the Terang & Mortlake Health Service and South Gippsland Hospital in Foster. They will all benefit from these reforms.

Additionally, there will be a reclassification, where the Warrnambool Base Hospital will be reclassified from a level 3 hospital to a level 2 hospital. That will in result in increased staffing on medical and surgical wards, acknowledging the changing needs of that local community in particular. The demand on healthcare services in Warrnambool continues to grow, and in part this is due to continual population growth within the City of Warrnambool. It is important that our health services are able to adapt and provide the appropriate level of care needed for the demands of a growing community.

Also this bill will see changes to the Child Well-being and Safety Act 2005, and it will introduce amendments to protect the high quality of our maternal and child health service, prescribing maternal and child health qualifications into legislation, again a critical area of our health service, ensuring that our youngest Victorians as well and their mothers can get access to high-quality maternal and child health services. For over 100 years the maternal and child health services have played a key role in promoting health, wellbeing, safety, learning and developmental outcomes for all children and their families. We are the only state in the country that requires maternal and child health nurses to be triple qualified. They need to be a registered nurse, they also need to be a registered midwife and they need postgraduate qualifications in maternal and child health nursing. As I said, we are the only state in the country that requires that triple certification, and we want to keep it that way. We want to make sure we preserve this high level of education and qualifications, which has a significant focus on postnatal care for the mother as well as the child, because we know that in order for everyone to remain healthy of course the mother’s health is of primary importance, just as much as the baby’s health.

Ratios matter. Labor must protect them and will protect these ratios; it is critically important. Members will recall that the last time the Liberals were in government they waged industrial war on our nurses, engaging in protracted and delayed negations in an attempt to remove ratios from the enterprise agreement. We saw long and protracted disputes with the ambulance union as well. Again, there was a deliberate attack on our healthcare system, and that was appalling.

As I said, Labor will always make sure that we protect nurse-to-patient ratios, because they are important in protecting patient safety. At the heart of these ratios is patient safety. There is little disagreement globally about the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes in healthcare settings. There is a direct link. In fact recent research conducted by the Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research at the University of Pennsylvania school of nursing has found lower hospital patient-to-nurse ratios are associated with lower mortality, fewer readmissions, shorter lengths of stay, greater patient satisfaction, greater nurse job satisfaction, less burnout and greater intent to stay. I know this firsthand because when I used to talk to members every day when I was working with those members in our public hospital system they would tell me the impact that these changes had on their working lives. They felt less burnt out, less under pressure—less under pressure that they might make mistakes that might lead to compromised patient outcomes. So they really, really recognise the importance of these ratios.

The presence of adequate numbers of nursing staff also reduces the risk of patients developing pressure sores or ulcers, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, ulcers, gastritis, upper gastrointestinal bleeds, sepsis and cardiac arrest. Who would have thought? But all of these things have been proven to be linked to lower patient-to-staff ratios. Adequate nurse staffing also reduces patient length of stay and improves recovery as well.

We recognise the commitment of our hardworking nurses and midwives to support us, our families and our friends at their time of greatest need. As I just said earlier, nurses tell us that ratios do matter, and I do have that firsthand. Ratios allow them to provide the quality care Victorians expect and deserve from our public health system.

Thankfully we now have five solid years of investment under our government in delivering real results for Victorians. We have invested $12.4 billion for hospital operating budgets in 2019–20 alone, including our record $200 million flu package. Hospitals are now receiving 40 per cent more funding than they did in 2013–14, and since 2014 we have committed an unprecedented $7 billion to Victorian health infrastructure, delivering the largest health build program in Victorian history. It is something to be immensely proud of, and I know all of my colleagues here on the government bench join me in that as well.

In the 2019–20 budget we invested $1.8 billion. This is more than those opposite invested in their entire four-year term. This includes $1.5 billion for the new Footscray Hospital, the largest ever health investment in the state. This hospital will cut wait times and reduce pressure on nearby hospitals. It will deliver 504 beds. It will treat approximately 15 000 additional patients and enable an extra 20 000 people to be seen by the emergency department each year.

My time is running down on the clock. I do have lots more to talk about. However, I will leave the rest of this contribution for other government members to make. But the record level of investment is incredibly impressive and is a testament to this government’s support of our much-loved and recognised professional nurses and midwives. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:47): I am pleased to be able to rise this evening and speak to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020. As a former nurse and midwife myself, I have been particularly concerned about all of those people that I know—a number of doctors, physicians, GPs and a whole range of allied healthcare workers that I have worked with over many years—in the last few months. They have done an extraordinary job, as we all know. When I was reflecting on this bill I was thinking back to some of those images that we have seen over the last six months which have been absolutely devastating. It is not only the images of our healthcare workers, our frontline workers in PPE doing a sensational job, but the tragedy of some of the heartbreaking stories of family members who were unable to see their loved ones—the 800 Victorians who lost their lives to COVID—and who were shut out of that very terrible process and unable to say goodbye to their loved ones.

I know that the people that I spoke to and the family members that I helped during this time and during these very, very sad circumstances I will not forget in a long, long time—the meaningful dialogue that I had with these family members and the lovely correspondence I received from them, thanking me for the help I gave. It was not really that; it was the people that gave those Victorians at the end of their lives dignity under such terrible circumstances.

One of the other lasting images I have which I think is tremendous, and as I said, I was reflecting on this, is of that extraordinary choir from the Royal Melbourne Hospital, the Scrub Choir, where they got up and the doctors and nurses played instruments, performing I’ll Stand by You—

Mr Ondarchie: It was beautiful.

Ms CROZIER: It was beautiful. Who said that?

Mr Finn: It was Craig.

Ms CROZIER: Mr Ondarchie, it was so beautiful and just extraordinary, and I think every single Victorian was right behind all of those healthcare workers as they put their other talents on show. It was very uplifting. It was very moving and very beautiful, as Mr Ondarchie said, but in saying that, I have just been listening to Ms Terpstra talking about ratios and the pressures and the stress and how ratios assist. I think in this last period the stresses and the pressures of what our frontline healthcare workers have been dealing with in relation to dealing with all of those issues—pressure sores from the masks and from the continual PPE. We know that, and there is the stress and the unknown that they were dealing with. So lots of issues have gone on, and I have to say that there were many other people in the community that did the most terrific job in supporting Victorians throughout this crisis, and they still do. They are the GPs, they are those allied healthcare workers as well, who are the people in the community who are seeing Victorians when they are sick, when they are presenting for other medical conditions and when they are needing support.

What I am alarmed at is the number of GPs that are telling me the number of people that we are referring to mental health services have increased. We used to do one a week if we were lucky, and now there are several a day. This is the result of the prolonged lockdown that Victoria has experienced, and these effects are going to be long-lasting. Today the government did their dump of annual reports of which the Department of Health and Human Services’ was one. In there it demonstrated just how far behind we are. So it is not just about investment; it is actually about outcomes.

Outcomes are so important for everybody, for the patient obviously but for those healthcare providers too, who put in their all. They want to see those outcomes. But what we do know is prior to COVID, in March, before suspension of elective surgery occurred, it was actually the highest record in Victoria. Record levels of people were waiting, languishing, on Victoria’s elective surgery waitlist. That is a fact. That is what the figures were just a couple of days before the suspension of surgery occurred.

I have been waiting for the past month, and I am waiting for the figures to come out either tomorrow or, I presume, Saturday, the last day of the month. The government will release the latest figures, and you will see that due to the lockdown, the extent of the lockdown and that waitlist, where people have not been able to see a specialist and they have not been able to go to the outpatients, those waitlists are going to grow and chronic disease, preventable disease and medical complaints are going to worsen. So I fear that a lot of Victorians have not had the ability to see a specialist, have not had the ability to get their screening done or have been too fearful of having cancer screening, whether it is breast screens, pap smears, prostate checks or skin cancer checks—all of those preventable cancers are going to have a devastating effect on many, many thousands of Victorians who have not been screened in time, and that will be caught up with serious health needs.

I would urge anyone listening, if you are at all worried, please go to your GP. Please see your medical practitioner. Please do not put it off, and if you need a breast screen, if you are worried about a skin lesion or you have got other issues in relation to thinking that there is something not quite right—if you are a male and fearful of prostate cancer—please get it checked out, because that preventative action or that early action can have a great outcome if those cancers are checked. That is just one issue.

I am very focused on outcomes. Investment is fine, but as I said, the waitlist was at record levels pre COVID. Goodness knows where it is going to be when we get those figures in a day or two, and they are going to have an ongoing impact on the health system, but certainly and more importantly they are going to have a detrimental impact on Victorians who have not got the health care they need.

I diverted slightly because I was giving my experience of having been a nurse and a midwife and speaking to those people that I do know and who have been working through this very challenging time. I know Mr Finn’s wife, who is a nurse in a large Melbourne inner-city hospital and understands the impacts of a whole range of things that people have been dealing with throughout this period of time.

Mr Finn: She’s a hospital supervisor now.

Ms CROZIER: Well, congratulations—it is a very senior position, and I am sure she will do extraordinarily well. A hospital supervisor—I have been in that position and I know how important it is. You have to juggle; you have to manage everybody coming through the door and those emergency presentations. And while I am on emergency presentations, the emergency presentations that have gone up because of people with a mental illness are very alarming, and that is incredibly important too—where we are at in terms of emergency departments’ inability to cope and how that needs to be addressed in the months and years to come.

Now, as I said, this bill does a number of things. It builds on the previous bills that have been before the house such as the safe patient care nurse-to-patient ratios legislation. It does three things effectively: it rounds off some ratios, especially for night shifts and in the aged-care sector; it makes provision for an additional nurse and midwife on charge to be included in the night shifts of general and specialist wards, including in general medical or surgical wards, geriatrics, special care, birthing suites and postnatal wards; and it does a further thing in terms of—as Ms Terpstra mentioned—the after-hours coordinator, which I think Mr Finn’s wife, Cathy, has probably been involved with and which is making an impact in rural and regional hospitals. I want to come back to this, and I will be speaking to the minister in the committee stage around the ability for the government to honour that commitment for some regional areas. I know, because I grew up near Casterton—I actually worked at the Casterton hospital.

I actually went back to the Casterton hospital earlier this year. It was with Ms Kealy, and we had a great tour and it was fabulous to go back and see after a number of years of me having worked in the Casterton hospital just the tremendous care and dedication that that very small regional hospital provides to its community—something that I am proud of, having worked there. My family have a long association with that hospital, my grandparents especially, who were founding members. As I said, I will come back to those areas in the committee stage.

The bill also puts into place the commitment that the government has provided for the Warrnambool Base Hospital to become a level 2 hospital. I know my colleague Ms Britnell, who is in the other place, trained at the Warrnambool hospital. She knows it so well. She is very committed to her local community, and she has said that even though the commitment was given by Labor way back in 2014 for ongoing upgrades to Warrnambool hospital it is still lagging. The emergency department and the theatre down in Warrnambool are very substandard for that growing community, and especially as this bill tries to address some of those concerns. The government has not provided that commitment. Goodness knows when we are going to see the budget. We do not know. Have we got any clue when the budget is? Does anyone know?

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: Right. Well, we still do not know when the budget is, but I am hoping that the government will be looking at some of these upgrades and promises that they promised six years ago and still have not delivered on.

As I said, Ms Britnell has a very firm commitment to her community and wants to see the best outcomes. She understands it. I mean, I left the health system some time ago. Ms Britnell is far more familiar with the needs of that local community, having worked in the system before she entered Parliament, and she knows only too well their needs.

Now, the third aspect of the bill is an area which amends the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 to ensure the operators of maternal and child health centres employ nursing staff who have obtained prescribed specialist maternal and child health nursing qualifications—a very important area. And again, through COVID, I think this bill says how important it is, but actually the maternal and child health nurses have not been able to deliver the care to families, and we have seen people be discharged early. They have not had the support. I know that I have been speaking to local councils about this very important area, and they have been very concerned about some of the women who have not been able to have the proper maternal and child health nurse follow-up that they should have.

We might see—we do not know—what the effects will be in the months and years to come in relation to that very important role, that supporting role. I know that my colleagues Ms Kealy and Ms Ryan have both had babies—and indeed Dr Ratnam here has had a baby—during COVID in very trying and testing circumstances, and it is understandably very unsettling. I know at the height when the virus was so out of control I was getting a huge number of people just so concerned about their family members who were having babies, and there was so much confusion about the directives—about when a husband could stay with their wife, how long they could stay for, whether they could come back. It was a dog’s breakfast, and it caused so much undue distress for those expectant parents. Indeed I was assisting Ms Ryan in relation to her needs, and she was very, very concerned about her partner not being able to be with her. But nevertheless the government saw some wisdom—not wisdom, they saw some common sense I should say; they do not show too much wisdom—and overturned the ridiculous very restrictive directives that were in place.

In relation to those issues, I think there are concerns that have been raised with me. In fact I had passed on to me an email that was given to me around this very area. I know that we are the only state that has this trio of tertiary qualifications, but there are Victorians who have provided very significant experience in other parts of Australia working in the area of child and adolescent health nursing. That is not maternal and child health, but it is certainly around early years, a child from a baby to a toddler, which covers off the maternal and child health. And because they do not have the experience that now the government is prescribing we are excluding those people from returning to Victoria and undertaking the work that they have done elsewhere. And they may have worked in some very significant communities—in Indigenous communities, in remote areas—and seen all sorts of things. That experience you cannot underestimate, and I know that from my own experience. You cannot underestimate experience.

In the COVID crisis I was hearing from friends of mine who have got tremendous experience who were saying to me some of these young grads and young nurses through no fault of their own do not know how to barrier nurse. They actually do not know how to don and doff PPE properly. They were very concerned about what was happening, and the critical area that they were worried about was our healthcare workers getting infected. Well, we know that 3700 and rising have been infected—very concerning numbers—and Safer Care Victoria need to release all the reports and findings that I have written to them about. I have written to them asking them to look and investigate and have been shoved off to someone else because someone else in the Department of Health and Human Services changed seats and moved on. This happens time and time again, and Victorians need to understand that the system is robust, that they have got the proper treatment and that these issues will not arise if—I say ‘if’, and I hope to goodness I am so wrong—a third wave comes.

With those words in relation to that serious issue I would hope that there is ongoing training for all our healthcare workers and fit testing, which is way behind. Every hospital has to have a plan in by 31 October, but we do not have the fit-testing machines to ensure that fit testing of masks is actually being undertaken. Your face and my face are different, Acting President. A mask that will suit you may not necessarily suit me, and the fit testing is incredibly important for our healthcare workers. I think the government have been a bit slow off the mark in terms of getting the fit-testing requirements for so many of our healthcare workers who actually require that to be done to be safe in Victoria; hence we have had so many infections. I suspect that is partly the reason. So I am looking forward to an explanation from Safer Care Victoria sooner rather than later after I wrote to them months ago asking about an investigation and what those findings would be.

So there is a lot to say in relation to so many aspects of this bill. I just want to put on record my concerns. I will be raising some issues in the committee stage around the funding components and how the government will be able to do that, to put these ratios in place. I think we all need to understand how that will be done, especially in some of our rural and regional areas that just do not have the workforce that perhaps is mandated in this bill, and I will be asking the government where those shortfalls are, what they are going to do and how they are going to assist those communities in ensuring that they can comply with the legislation.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (18:06): I move:

That debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until next day of meeting.

Education and Training Reform Amendment Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem) (18:07): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 and for other purposes’.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:08): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:08): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Education and Training Reform Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill).

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

Overview

The Bill amends the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (the Principal Act) to clarify that the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (Authority) may employ staff for a fixed period or on a casual or sessional basis. This is a technical amendment to clarify this limited power to employ, outside of the Authority’s general power to contract.

The purpose of engaging employees for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis aligns with the Authority’s powers under sections 2.5.3(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Principal Act, namely, to develop and conduct assessments. The Authority will also be able to engage employees for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis for any additional purposes should the need arise, if specified in a Ministerial Order.

The Authority engages employees for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis during peak exams times in the school year to undertake tasks such as developing, setting, supervising and marking Victorian Certificate of Education and Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning examinations. In most instances, the persons employed for this work are qualified and practising teachers. Therefore, this amendment will clarify that the Authority has the power to employ staff for these purposes, with the salaries and allowances paid and the terms and conditions of employment for these staff to be determined by Ministerial Order.

The Bill also makes technical amendments arising from recent reforms to the Children’s Services Act 1996 (Cth). The Children’s Services Amendment Act 2019, which received Royal Assent on 6 November 2019 and commenced on 17 May 2020, aligned the regulatory regime for children’s services with the regulatory regime for education and care services under the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria). The Children’s Services Regulations 2020, which commenced on 17 May 2020, completed the alignment of the children’s services regulatory framework with the National Law.

This consequential amendment aligns with the new framework for children’s services, to provide that, amongst other aspects of the definition, an early childhood teacher does not include an educator (within the meaning of section 5 of the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria) or within the meaning of section 3 of the Children’s Services Act 1996) who does not hold an approved early childhood teaching qualification.

Human rights issues

The Bill does not raise any human rights issues.

Consideration of reasonable limitations

As the Bill does not raise any human rights issues, it is not necessary to consider any reasonable limitations under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Conclusion

I consider that the Bill is compatible with the Charter because it does not raise any human rights issues.

The Hon. Gayle Tierney MP

Second reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:08): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Ms PULFORD: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Bill proposes amendments to Part 2.5 and Part 2.6 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (ETRA).

Part 2.5 of the ETRA establishes the legislative framework for the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA), which develops curriculum and assessment policy for school students in Victoria, including those in Years 11 and 12 undertaking accredited courses, and sets minimum standards for measuring and reporting on early childhood development.

Part 2.6 of the ETRA establishes the governance framework and powers and functions of the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT). The VIT is the statutory authority that regulates the Victorian teaching profession, including early childhood teachers.

The main purpose of the Bill is to clarify the employment powers of the VCAA through amendments to Part 2.5 of the ETRA. The VCAA develops policies, criteria and standards for curriculum, assessments and courses for school students, including courses leading to registered qualifications. The proposed amendments relate specifically to the VCAA’s function of developing, evaluating and approving courses undertaken in school years 11 and 12. In undertaking this function, the VCAA oversees the delivery of, and conducts assessments for, the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE), the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL) and any other qualification available to a student in a school, with some exceptions, such as vocational education and training, further education and higher education.

In order to fulfil its functions in relation to the development and assessment of accredited courses for Years 11 and 12 students, the VCAA needs to employ a number of teachers and other suitably qualified people for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis each year. These employees are not on-going staff of the VCAA, who are employed by the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training under Part 3 of the Public Administration Act 2004.

The VCAA currently relies on its general contracting power under the ETRA to engage approximately 4000 of these employees for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis during peak exam times in the school year to undertake tasks such as developing, setting, supervising and marking VCE exams.

To remove any potential ambiguity around the VCAA’s power to employ persons for the purposes of performing its functions, the proposed amendment clarifies that the VCAA does have a limited power to engage employees for a fixed period or on a casual/sessional basis to develop and conduct assessments, and for any additional purposes provided for through a Ministerial Order. The determination of salaries and allowances paid and the terms and conditions of employment of staff employed by the VCAA will be determined by Ministerial Order.

The proposal will not require or result in any change to the current practices of the VCAA, and will support the VCAA to continue to provide essential services to Victoria’s senior secondary school students.

The Bill also proposes technical consequential amendments to Part 2.6 of the ETRA arising from changes to the Children’s Services Act 1996 and the regulations made under that Act regarding early childhood teacher staffing requirements in children’s services.

The Children’s Services Amendment Act 2019, which received Royal Assent on 6 November 2019 and commenced on 17 May 2020, aligned the regulatory regime for children’s services with the regulatory regime for education and care services under the Education and Care Services National Law (Victoria). The Children’s Services Regulations 2020, which commenced on 17 May 2020, completed the alignment of the children’s services regulatory framework with the National Law.

The alignment of the children’s services regulatory framework with the Education and Care Services National Law included use of the term “educator” to refer to teachers holding an approved early childhood teaching qualification, as well as to other early childhood staff who do not hold an approved early childhood teaching qualification. The proposed amendments to Part 2.6 of the ETRA will clarify that the definition of “early childhood teacher” in this Act includes only those “educators” who hold an approved early childhood teaching qualification.

The Government has undertaken limited, targeted consultation on the draft Bill, and no criticism of the proposed amendments has been made. The VCAA and the VIT have been consulted on the amendments affecting each organisation and are supportive.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:09): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.

Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem) (18:09): I have another message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Human Tissue Act 1982 to establish a process for authorising the carrying out of ante-mortem procedures for the purposes of donating human tissue after death and for other purposes’.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:09): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:10): I want to draw to the attention of the house amendments that were made in the Assembly. Amendments have been introduced to further clarify the intent of the bill and do the following:

1. Clause 5, page 4, lines 11 to 16, omit “if the artificial means of maintaining the respiration or the circulation of the blood of the person were withdrawn, irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of that person would occur imminently” and insert “death of the person would occur as a result of the withdrawal of the artificial means of maintaining the respiration or the circulation of the blood of the person”.

2. Clause 5, page 5, line 5, omit “or a consent”.

3. Clause 5, page 5, lines 6 and 7, omit “, or a consent under section 24C” and insert “with the consent of a medical treatment decision maker under section 24C, or in the circumstances set out in section 24E”.

I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill).

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

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Human Tissue Act 1982 (the Act) to establish a process for authorising the carrying out of ante-mortem procedures for the purposes of donating human tissue after death and for other purposes.

Human rights issues

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are the right not to be subjected to medical experimentation or treatment without consent under section 10(c) and the right to privacy under section 13(a).

Right not to be subjected to medical experimentation or treatment without consent and right to privacy

Section 10(c) of the Charter provides, relevantly, that a person has the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without their full, free and informed consent. In addition, section 13(a) of the Charter protects a person’s right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. This right extends to privacy in the sense of bodily integrity, which involves the right not to have a person’s physical self interfered with by others without their consent. The purpose of these rights is to protect the individual’s personal autonomy and integrity. They recognise the freedom of individuals to choose whether or not they receive medical treatment and how their body is to be treated.

Legislative amendments

The Bill introduces a process for authorisation of ante-mortem procedures in respect of a person for the purposes of the donation of their tissue, by inserting a new Division 1 into Part IV of the Act. Ante-mortem procedures are defined in new section 24A as medical procedures carried out to determine, maintain or improve the viability of tissue, including the administration of medication, the taking of blood for testing, medical imaging, and the maintenance of life support. The Bill provides a process for giving authority for the carrying out of ante-mortem procedures.

New section 24B provides for the administration of ante-mortem procedures where a person lacks decision-making capacity at the relevant time but has a medical treatment decision-maker who is available and willing to make decisions on their behalf. New section 24D provides that two medical practitioners (with prescribed qualifications) must certify in writing that they have carried out a clinical examination of the person whose respiration or circulation is being maintained by artificial means, and they hold the opinion that irreversible cessation of all functions of the brain would occur imminently if such artificial means were withdrawn. The designated officer for a hospital may then provide an authority for the person’s medical treatment decision maker to provide consent to the carrying out of the procedures, pursuant to new sections 24B and 24C. The Bill adopts the same meaning of medical decision maker as currently provided in the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (the MTPD Act), which involves a hierarchy for determining an adult person’s medical treatment decision maker, beginning with the person appointed as medical treatment decision maker, then a guardian under the Guardianship and Administrations Act 1986, then a prescribed family member with whom the person is in a close and continuing relationship. The medical treatment decision maker of a child is the child’s parent or guardian or other person with parental responsibility for the child.

Where no such decision-maker is available, the Bill provides for a designated officer to authorise the administration of these procedures. After two medical practitioners have provided written certification in accordance with new section 24D, if the designated officer for the hospital is unable to ascertain the existence or the whereabouts of the medical treatment decision maker in respect of a person, the designated officer may authorise ante-mortem procedures to be undertaken in respect of that person, pursuant to new section 24E, which requires the designated officer to have no reason to believe the person had expressed an objection to such procedures.

Do ante-mortem procedures constitute medical treatment or an interference with bodily integrity?

The Bill provides that the ante-mortem procedures may be carried out for the purposes of the transplantation of the tissue of that person after death to the body of a living person, or for the use of the tissue of that person after death for other therapeutic purposes or for medical or scientific purposes. It is therefore arguable that ante-mortem procedures do not fall within the definition of ‘medical treatment’ under section 3(1) of the MTPD Act as the listed types of treatment are to be for ‘the purposes of diagnosing a physical or mental condition, preventing disease, restoring or replacing bodily function in the face of disease or injury or improving comfort and quality of life’. However, Charter rights are to be interpreted broadly and the meaning of the word ‘treatment’ under the Charter may be broader than under the MTPD Act. Further, if the procedures are being undertaken for medical or scientific purposes, they would likely fall within the scope of ‘medical or scientific experimentation or treatment’ within the meaning of section 10(c) of the Charter.

Ante-mortem procedures are likely to constitute a medium level of interference with bodily integrity. Examples of ante-mortem procedures include the taking of blood for serology testing and tissue typing to determine there are no contradictions preventing organ suitability; administration of antibiotics, medication to control blood pressure, or anticoagulant medication; undertaking a bronchoscopy (an internal investigation of the lungs by means of an optical instrument); delaying withdrawal of cardiorespiratory support where clinically futile, so as to facilitate organ removal and transplantation; and cannulation of femoral vessels (the process of putting a small tube in a large blood vessel in the upper leg) to facilitate infusion of preservation solution once death has occurred. The acts are less invasive than the actual donation of tissue or organs, and do not cause any harm to a person’s body.

Limitations on rights

Where a person has appointed a medical treatment decision maker, the decision maker has been authorised by the person to make decisions on their behalf. It is anticipated that a person would communicate the fact that they have consented to organ donation to the decision maker. The medical treatment decision maker would then know to give consent to any ante-mortem procedures in order to give full effect to the person’s wish to donate.

In other circumstances, such as where a family member is taken to be the medical treatment decision maker or a hospital’s designated officer authorises the procedures in the absence of consent from a medical treatment decision maker, the Bill may be considered to interfere with a person’s right to full, free and informed consent under section 10(c). Ante-mortem procedures falling outside the scope of section 10(c) may still constitute an interference with the right to bodily privacy under section 13(a).

In my view, however, any interference with respect to the right not to be subjected to medical treatment without consent in section 10(c) is justified under section 7(2) of the Charter and, with respect to the right to privacy in section 13(a), is neither unlawful nor arbitrary.

The proposed amendments are for the important public purpose of authorising ante-mortem procedures for the purposes of organ donation after death. Ante-mortem procedures are considered essential to ensuring viable organ and tissue donation. Specifically, it is considered best practice to undertake a number of investigations and interventions to preserve organ quality to enhance the likelihood of successful transplantation, known collectively as ante-mortem procedure (or ante-mortem interventions), before blood circulation has irreversibly ceased. Improvements in medicine and technology since the Act was passed mean that optimal practices for organ donation are not reflected in the procedures for organ donation allowed under the Act.

There is no legal mechanism by which a person who has given consent to organ donation can consent to ante-mortem procedures. Health services have expressed concern about the ability to continue to facilitate donations following circulatory death, if they cannot lawfully perform the ante-mortem procedures required to enhance the likelihood of a successful donation. This would significantly reduce organ donations in Victoria, which in turn, would result in serious negative health outcomes such as prolonging disease, disability or impairment in a person, or potentially leading to the death of a person, in circumstances where such conditions could have treated or prevented through the availability of organ donation. The Bill addresses this issue by authorising medical treatment decision makers to consent to ante-mortem decision makers on behalf of a person and, in certain circumstances, provides for designated officers to authorise the procedures. As a result, the Bill in turn promotes the right to life in the Charter, and the obligation of the State to implement reasonable measures for the protection of life. The requirement for a designated officer, before granting authority, to make reasonable enquiries to ascertain the existence of a medical treatment decision maker and to be satisfied that there are no reasons to believe the person had expressed an objection to such procedures, are important safeguards that ensures the Bill is no less restrictive than necessary.

Accordingly, I consider the Bill to be compatible with the Charter rights to privacy and to not to be subject to medical treatment without consent.

Jenny Mikakos MP

Minister for Health

Second reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:11): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Ms PULFORD: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Andrews Labor Government is committed to supporting organ and tissue donation for transplantation. I am pleased to table the Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2020 which supports ante-mortem procedures in potential organ and tissue donors, and which will facilitate the donor’s wish to provide viable organs and tissues to improve the lives of transplant recipients.

These amendments will remove an ambiguity in the current Human Tissue Act 1982 and clarify the process for obtaining consent for ante-mortem procedures in people who have expressed a wish to be an organ and tissue donor after death.

Specifically, the Bill allows the medical treatment decision maker to consent to the carrying out of ante-mortem procedures in respect of that person, for the purposes of the transplantation of that person’s tissue, after their death, into the body of a living person or to use that tissue for therapeutic purposes or for medical or scientific purposes.

Ante-mortem procedures are treatments given to a potential organ donor before their death. These procedures delay the degradation of the organs, which begins to occur upon the withdrawal of life support, allowing for the organs, so treated, to remain viable for a period of time, when the body’s circulation ceases. These viable organs can then be transplanted providing people with a life-saving organ and/or life enhancing tissue transplant.

I commend this Bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:11): I move, on behalf of my colleague Ms Crozier:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.

Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem) (18:12): I have a further message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 in relation to publication of identification of victims, to amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 in relation to delegation of certain powers, to amend the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 in relation to the Committee under that Act, to amend the Defamation Act 2005 and the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to include further model provisions, to amend the Corrections Act 1986 in relation to certain detention orders and prisoner mail, to amend the Forests Act 1958 to enable specified persons to carry out specified activities in the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district, to amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 in relation to pre-injury average weekly earnings and for other purposes’.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:13): That is a very long title. I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:13): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020.

In my opinion, the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill seeks to:

a. amend the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 to clarify and simplify the circumstances in which information likely to identify a sex offence victim can be lawfully published;

b. implement in Victoria nationally-agreed amendments to the Model Defamation Provisions (MDPs) to modernise and improve the uniform defamation laws;

c. amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and Accident Compensation Act 1985 to exclude a reduction in earnings due to COVID-19 in between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 from calculations that determine workers’ compensation entitlements;

d. amend the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (VOCA Act) to provide for the delegation of certain powers and duties to specified Tribunal staff;

e. amend the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 with respect to terms of appointment for certain members of the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee;

f. amend the Corrections Act 1986 to support the national High-Risk Terrorist Offender Scheme, and to strengthen powers for officers to deal with letters received by prisoners for security purposes;

g. amend the Forests Act 1958 to provide Forest Fire Management Victoria firefighters with the legal authorisation to operate within the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district.

Human Rights Issues

The Bill makes a number of amendments to a range of legislation. These amendments engage various human rights protected by the Charter. Each of those areas are discussed in turn below.

Amendments relating to the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958

The Bill amends section 4 of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (JPRA) to make it easier for victim-survivors of sexual offences to tell their stories if they wish to do so. Under the current JPRA, adult victim-survivors require the court’s permission to tell their story when criminal proceedings for the sexual offence are pending, or have concluded with the offender’s conviction. Child victim-survivors can only speak about their experiences legally if proceedings are not pending and they are mature enough to understand the consequences of being publicly identified as a victim-survivor of a sexual offence.

The amendments will permit adult and child victim-survivors, regardless of the stage of the criminal proceedings (if any), to legally publish their stories without court involvement, provided that in doing so they do not identify another victim-survivor who wishes to maintain their anonymity.

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to Part 2 of the Bill are:

• the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

• the right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

• the right to freedom of expression (section 15)

• the right to protection of families and children (section 17)

• rights in criminal proceedings (sections 24 and 25)

Right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

Section 8 of the Charter provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law, as well as the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.

In relation to publication by persons other than the identified victim-survivor, the Bill distinguishes between victim-survivors with capacity to permit publication of their identifying details and those who do not due to, for example, their young age or a mental impairment. For adult victim-survivors without decision-making capacity and child victim-survivors who do not understand the nature and consequences of their decision to identify as a sexual offence victim-survivor, a court must authorise any third-party publishing of their identifying details.

This distinction is reasonably necessary to afford effective protection to victim-survivors who, for different reasons, may be unable to fully appreciate the consequences of allowing another person to identify them as a victim-survivor of a sexual offence. Court supervision in such cases is intended to confirm that victim-survivors understand their decision to publish, and protect them from being pressured to publish their story.

The court, in deciding whether to authorise publication of a victim-survivor’s identifying details, must have regard to the victim-survivor’s views and be satisfied that disclosure is in the public interest. This will ensure that victim-survivors’ voices are heard by the court and that the Bill does not have a discriminatory impact by only permitting some victim-survivors but not others to allow another person to publish their story.

Further, this distinction is not made in relation to self-publishing. A victim-survivor who self-publishes will not be guilty of an offence under the JPRA, regardless of their ability to understand the nature and consequences of their decision to publish (as long as that publication does not identify another victim-survivor who has not given their permission). This ensures that no victim-survivor commits a criminal offence by, for example, posting about their experience as a victim-survivor on social media.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

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

The right to privacy is broad and protects values such as the individual and social identity, and autonomy and inherent dignity, of a person and their interest in their personal and social sphere.

The existing JPRA provisions make it an offence to publish any matter that is likely to reveal the identity of victim-survivors of sexual offending, or alleged sexual offending. The offence is aimed at protecting the privacy of victim-survivors. The Bill will strengthen this protection by clarifying when, and how, the exceptions and defences to the offence will apply.

The Bill will further strengthen the right to privacy by excluding the application of the offence to victim-survivors who choose to publish their own stories, and allowing more victim-survivors to permit their stories to published, without first having to seek permission from a court. This promotes respect for their autonomy and dignity. The Bill also provides for victim-survivors to tailor the permission they give for publishing their stories, by limiting this permission to particular details, for example their name but not their image. Victim-survivors will also be able to control the narrative by only permitting publication by a specified journalist or a particular newspaper, website or television program.

The Bill allows the court to hear an application for authorisation to publish identifying details. These proceedings may involve multiple victim-survivors, some of whom wish to publish and some of whom do not. If even one of these victim-survivors (with the requisite decision-making capacity) does not wish to publish, the court must not authorise publication, if such publication is likely to lead to the identification of that victim-survivor. This recognises the importance of victim-survivors’ privacy and their right to control how their personal information is used.

By clarifying that the publication prohibition continues after the death of a victim, and when a court may authorise publication of identifying details in relation to a deceased victim, the Bill enhances the privacy of deceased victims and their family members. When considering whether to make an order which would allow identifying details of a deceased victim to be published, a court must have regard to any known wishes of the deceased and their family members (unless a family member is the offender), as well as be satisfied that disclosure is in the public interest.

The Bill provides retrospective immunity for those who, from 1991 when the publication prohibition commenced, self-published or published identifying details about an adult victim-survivor of a sexual offence with their permission. This ensures that victim-survivors do not commit an offence by choosing to speak out, which recognises their agency over their personal details and stories.

Freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds. Section 15 also provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, such that it may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of other persons, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

The publication prohibition restricts the right to freedom of expression in that it prohibits the publication of any matter that is likely to reveal the identity of victims of sexual offending, or alleged sexual offending. Such restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the privacy rights of victim-survivors. The Bill will reduce the restriction to freedom of expression by allowing victim-survivors to self-publish and permit others to publish, without the involvement of the court. This promotes the right to freedom of expression and provides victim-survivors with agency to speak publicly about their experiences, as well as control over the use of their name, image and other identifying details.

The JPRA will continue to restrict the right to freedom of expression appropriately, by continuing to prohibit publication where the victim-survivor has not provided permission to publish.

The Bill also restricts the freedom of expression of adults without decision-making capacity and children who are considered unable to understand what it means to be identified as a victim of a sexual offence and the consequences of losing their anonymity. These are reasonably necessary restrictions, intended to protect the privacy of this group. They are also balanced by the provisions in the Bill that require a court, in permitting publication of identifying details, to take into account the views of the victim-survivor and be satisfied that disclosure is in the public interest.

Protection of children (section 17(2))

Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child.

The Bill promotes the protection of children by ensuring that publishing any matter that is likely to reveal the identity of a child victim-survivor of sexual offending, or alleged sexual offending, continues to be prohibited, other than when the child self-publishes their identity or has given their permission for that publication. As an additional safeguard intended to promote the protection of children, permission to publish given by a child victim-survivor must be accompanied by a supporting statement from an independent authorised person, such as a registered medical practitioner or psychologist. This will protect children who do not have the requisite mental capacity or maturity to understand the potential consequences of permitting the publication of their identifying details.

In situations where a third party applies to the court for authorisation to publish the identifying details of a child victim-survivor, the court is obliged to consider the child’s views and the public interest—making it unlikely that a child victim-survivor would be identified contrary to their wishes. In addition, if a child victim-survivor does not wish to publish, and that child has a supporting statement to the effect that they understand what it means to be identified as a victim-survivor, the court must not authorise publication. This recognises the importance of child victim-survivors’ privacy and their right to control how their personal information is used. The Bill also protects children by making it clear that they will not commit a criminal offence where they publish identifying information about themselves (as long as that publication does not identify another victim-survivor who has not given their permission).

Rights in criminal proceedings (sections 24 and 25(1))

The Bill places the onus of proof on an accused to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a defence to the publication prohibition in the JPRA applies. This is consistent with the existing defences in section 4 of the JPRA.

As these provisions reverse the usual onus of proof for criminal defences, which is that the prosecution is required to prove that no defence raised by the accused applies, they are likely to engage sections 24 and 25(1) of the Charter, which protect the right to a fair hearing and, in criminal proceedings, specifically provide that a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

The Bill provides three defences to the offence of contravening the publication prohibition in the JPRA:

a. that publication was in accordance with an adult victim-survivor’s permission (where the victim-survivor had decision-making capacity),

b. that publication was in accordance with a child victim-survivor’s permission, where a supporting statement was obtained prior to publication,

c. that publication was permitted by a court order made under subsection (1BF).

The reverse onus aspects of these three defences are likely to limit the right to be presumed innocent in s 25(1) of the Charter. However, any limitation on this right is justified and proportionate, and so compatible with the Charter.

The publication prohibition is intended to protect victim-survivors of sexual offences from being identified where they wish to remain anonymous. It is appropriate for the defences to this offence to place the legal burden on the accused, given the protective purpose of section 4(1A). This will assist to protect victim-survivors from potential trauma, intimidation and distress that may result from interference with their privacy.

By placing the legal burden of proof for the defences on the accused, the Bill ensures that publishers are on notice of the need to comply with the safeguards designed to protect victim-survivors, namely that:

• permission of the victim-survivor has been obtained

• publication is in accordance with any limitations set by the victim-survivor

• publication is not likely to identify another victim-survivor without their permission, and

• the victim-survivor had decision-making capacity (or in the case of a child, that an independent authorised person has issued a supporting statement to the effect that the child understood their decision and its likely consequences)

In addition, the nature of these defences makes it difficult for the prosecution to disprove the elements, given that the facts relevant to each defence are likely to be only within the knowledge of the accused, and that the evidence that would substantiate the defences is likely to be in the accused’s possession (for example, written permission from the victim-survivor). On the other hand, it would not be reasonable to require the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim-survivor had not provided the required permission, as this may result in the victim-survivor incurring additional trauma, intimidation and distress when giving evidence in this respect.

Amendments relating to the model defamation provisions

The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to Part 3 of the Bill are:

• the right to freedom of expression under section 15(2) of the Charter;

• the right to privacy under section 13 of the Charter; and

• the right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the Charter.

For the reasons outlined below, I am of the view that this Part is compatible with each of these human rights.

The right to freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. This right is subject to internal qualifications set out in section 15(3), which provide for lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of other persons.

Defamation law is inherently a restriction on the right to freedom of expression, but pursuant to section 15(3) of the Charter, is a lawful restriction, required in order to protect reputations through allowing an avenue to remedy in circumstances where a person has been unlawfully defamed. A balance must be struck between the need to provide fair remedies and the imperative to ensure defamation law does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression, particularly regarding matters of public interest.

The following key reforms in the Bill promote the right to freedom of expression:

a. public interest defence—the Bill will introduce a defence that protects defamatory matter where it concerns an issue of public interest;

b. serious harm threshold—the Bill will introduce a serious harm threshold to deter and prevent trivial actions by claimants where no significant harm is suffered;

c. academic and scientific publication defence—the Bill will introduce a defence for peer-reviewed statements and assessments in a scientific or academic journal, recognising the importance of academics being able to freely express their ideas;

d. single publication rule—the Bill will ensure that the limitation period for defamation actions is consistent in its application to digital and non-digital publications, providing greater certainty to publishers; and

e. pre-trial procedures—the Bill will introduce requirements that encourage early and non-litigated resolution of defamation disputes.

The right to privacy (section 13)

Section 13(b) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. Protecting this element of the right to privacy is at the core of defamation law, which must be balanced against freedom of expression.

Aspects of the defamation reforms promote the right to privacy. The public interest defence includes factors that the court may consider when determining whether the defence is established, such as whether a person’s side of the story is included, and whether the publication relates to the performance of public duties. These factors may be balanced against others that direct the court to consider freedom of expression, and how it should be weighed against the protection of a person’s privacy.

In promoting the right to freedom of expression, some of the reforms narrow the degree of protection that defamation law affords to personal reputation. For example, the serious harm threshold may exclude some defamation claims that would otherwise be allowed to proceed to litigation. The introduction of new defences and the clarification of the contextual truth and honest opinion defences will also increase the scope of lawful defamation.

To the extent that these reforms limit the protection of the right to privacy, they are necessary to achieve the aims of the Bill and are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable, as they will ensure a fairer balance of the competing rights is struck within defamation law.

The right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence or a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the charge or proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

The following reforms in the Bill are consistent with and promote the right to a fair hearing:

f. amendments to the “offer to make amends” defence so that it is determined by the judge, not the jury, to reduce the potential for jury prejudice;

g. amendments that provide that a party’s election to trial by jury may only be revoked with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings or, if all the parties do not consent, with the leave of the court if it is satisfied it is in the interests of justice; and

These amendments promote the right to a fair hearing by ensuring that justice can be delivered in defamation proceedings in a timely, fair and efficient manner.

Amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act

Rights to privacy (section 13)

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

The Bill amends the VOCA Act to insert various information-sharing functions which engage the right to privacy; however, in my view, do not limit the right.

The Bill amends section 40 of the VOCA Act to extend the registrar’s power to compel the production of certain information to Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (Tribunal) officers, a new class of Tribunal staff.

Tribunal officers are defined as officers of the Tribunal who are legally qualified or have the requisite skills or experience to carry out the functions of a Tribunal officer (new section 23(ca)). A Tribunal officer may give a notice to any person, and penalties attach to non-compliance. However, the power is appropriately circumscribed, with the information that may be requested being limited to information relevant to an application for assistance.

The ability of Tribunal officers to obtain this information is necessary in light of other amendments to the VOCA Act being introduced by the Bill, enabling the Chief Magistrate to delegate any power conferred on the Tribunal by or under the VOCA Act or any other Act, to registrars or Tribunal officers as necessary for the effective operation of the Tribunal. Demand for financial assistance at the Tribunal has increased significantly over the last five years. Notwithstanding the significant efforts of the Tribunal and the introduction of several efficiency measures, the increased demand is resulting in delays in determining applications and an increase in the number of ‘pending’ applications at the end of each financial year.

The amendments broadening the scope of delegations allowed under the VOCA Act are intended to assist in reducing this backlog and, specifically, extending the existing investigatory powers and functions of registrars to Tribunal officers - are intended to increase flexibility in decision-making. In my opinion, the above provisions engage but do not limit the rights to privacy and are therefore compatible with section 13(a) of the Charter.

Amendments to the Corrections Act

The amendments to the Corrections Act engage the following human rights under the Charter:

a. right to life (section 9)

b. the right to privacy (section 13)

c. freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14)

d. freedom of expression (section 15)

e. protection of families and children (section 17)

f. cultural rights (section 19)

g. the right to property (section 20)

h. humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22).

Amendments relating to the Commonwealth’s High-Risk Terrorist Offender Scheme

The amendments to the Corrections Act made by clauses 44 to 46 will result in a person who is the subject of a CDO or IDO, will remaining in the legal custody of the Secretary following the making of the order [CDO or IDO]. Further, clause 47 inserts a new Division 2A of Part 1A into the Act which confirms the Victorian Minister’s power to enter into an arrangement for detention at a prison of a person in relation to whom a CDO or IDO is in force. This also authorises the Secretary to detain the person at a prison for the duration of the order. New section 6K provides that a person detained under such an arrangement is to be managed under the Corrections Act.

The effect of these provisions is to confirm that a person detained under a CDO or IDO is a ‘prisoner’ for the purposes of the Corrections Act. A broad range of powers and responsibilities are provided for under that Act in relation to the management and welfare of prisoners. The application of the Corrections Act to prisoners subject to these orders therefore imposes constraints on a range of human rights. This can include varying degrees of restrictions on the following rights:

a. freedom of movement (s 12), in relation to degree of freedom afforded to move around the detention unit or around the greater prison;

b. privacy (s 13), in relation to conditions of detention, search and seizure conditions, visitation arrangements and sending/receiving mail;

c. freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (s 14), in relation to any operational limits on an offender’s ability to practise their religion;

d. freedom of expression (s 15), in relation to any additional limits on imparting or receiving ideas through restrictions on permissible activities or property;

e. freedom of association (s 16), in relation to additional limits on an offender’s ability associate with others and socialise;

f. freedom to take part in public life and cultural rights (ss 18 and 19); and

g. property rights (s 20), in relation to permitted property while detained.

In my view, to the extent that any of these rights are likely to be limited by the application of the Corrections Act to prisoners subject to a CDO or IDO, such limitations are reasonable and justified in accordance with s 7(2) of the Charter. Applying the powers under the Corrections Act to such persons serves the important purposes of enabling the proper management of the prison in which the person is detained, and protecting the safety of the community as well as of prison staff, prison visitors, and prisoners themselves. The powers set out in the Act with regard to prisoners enable prisons to effectively address threats to security, safety, or good order, and do not go further than is necessary to achieve their legitimate aims. While persons subject to a CDO or IDO are not serving terms of imprisonment under a sentence for an offence, they will have been determined by a court to pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence, and appropriate management of such persons in the prison context remains necessary to ensure that they do not undermine the secure and orderly management of the prison.

Further, I note that the Corrections Act includes a range of provisions directed at ensuring the welfare of prisoners and safeguarding their rights. This includes Division 4 of Part 6, which provides that prisoners have a range of specified rights—for example, the right to adequate food and reasonable medical care. In addition to the safeguards protecting the rights of all prisoners, clause 47 of the Bill inserts a new section 6K into the Corrections Act, providing that persons detained under a CDO or IDO must be treated appropriately given their status as unconvicted prisoners (in the sense that they are not currently serving a sentence of imprisonment relating to a conviction), but still nonetheless classified as a prisoner as outlined above, subject to any reasonable requirements necessary to maintain the management, security and good order of the prison, the safe custody and welfare of other prisoners, and the safety and protection of the community. Generally, under new s 6K(4), such persons must not be detained in the same area of the prison as persons serving custodial sentences.

Finally, I note that in my view, even in the absence of this legislation, a person who is detained in a Victoria prison under a CDO or IDO is a ‘prisoner’ for the purposes of the Corrections Act. ‘Prisoner’ is defined in the Act as a person in the legal custody of the Secretary. A person is deemed to be in the legal custody of the Secretary if a Court makes an order of imprisonment in relation to the person (s 6A(1)(a)). As a Court will have made an order of imprisonment in relation to a person subject to a CDO or IDO, that person will therefore already be a ‘prisoner’ for the purposes of the Corrections Act. As such, to the extent that the Bill limits Charter rights by imposing the provisions of the Corrections Act on persons detained under a CDO or IDO, the Bill is simply confirming the existing position and does not impose any additional limitations on rights.

Accordingly, I consider that limits on the rights set out above associated with application of the Corrections Act to prisoners detained under an IDO or CDO are compatible with the Charter.

Right to humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22)

Section 22 provides that all persons derived of liberty must be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Section 22 also provides that persons detained without charge must be segregated from persons who have been convicted of offences except where reasonably necessary, and must be treated in a way that is appropriate for a person who has not been convicted. I note that while persons subject to CDOs and IDOs will have previously been charged and convicted of offences, at the time that the CDO or IDO is in force they will not be serving a sentence of imprisonment in relation to the conviction, and may not be subject to any pending charges, so this aspect of the right is applicable.

As set out above, the right is preserved through the application of existing prisoner rights in the Corrections Act, as well as through the additional safeguards in the Bill requiring that persons subject to CDOs or IDOs be treated appropriately given their status as unconvicted prisoners and detention separately from the general prison population.

In practice, the guarantees in section 22 of the Charter will be achieved by placing offenders subject to detention orders in dedicated, separate and self-contained units within a prison. From these units, the offenders may, if they choose, access the programs and general prison facilities that are available to other prisoners. However, offenders will not generally be compelled to have contact with the general prison population unless necessary for countervailing safe custody, welfare or good order grounds. These exceptions aim to achieve the important purpose of ensuring that the over-arching management of the prison is not compromised. In my view, section 22 is not limited by the detention order scheme.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the detention order scheme is compatible with the Charter.

Amendments relating to prisoners’ personal mail

Clause 49 of the Bill introduces a new section 47CA into the Corrections Act. That section will enable certain prison staff in all prisons to copy a prisoner’s incoming personal mail that is able to be copied (for example, letters or children’s drawings), provide a copy of that mail to the prisoner and to dispose of the original. In such circumstances, the original mail is forfeited to the State.

The proposed power is appropriately targeted at personal mail and does not apply to ‘exempt’ mail, being mail that is sent to a prisoner from a person or body listed in section 47(1)(m) of the Corrections Act. Exempt persons and bodies include the Ombudsman, IBAC and the prisoner’s lawyer, among others.

This reform is necessary to address a significant increase in the use of prisoners’ mail as a means to attempt to introduce contraband into prisons. While operational strategies are used to prevent the introduction of contraband, some contraband (including Buprenorphine strips, which are used for opiate dependence and can be integrated into paper itself) can be very difficult to detect. The introduction of drugs and other contraband poses significant risks to the security of prisons and the safety and welfare of prisoners, prison staff and other persons in prisons. This reform provides prison staff with necessary and appropriate powers to reduce these risks by minimising the introduction of contraband through prisoner mail.

This reform will also reduce delays in prisoners receiving their mail by avoiding the need for each item of mail to be properly and thoroughly inspected before being given to the prisoner, which would result in significant delays.

For the reasons outlined below, I consider that this reform is compatible with the rights set out in the Charter.

Right to privacy (section 13)

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. This right, as it applies in respect of correspondence, protects against interference with a person’s capacity for communication by whatever means. It therefore protects against intercepting, opening, reading, inspecting, censoring or destroying any correspondence, including written correspondence, by a person other than the intended recipient. More broadly, the privacy aspect of this right includes a person’s personal and social identity, social relations, and physical and psychological integrity, which must also not be interfered with.

Opening and copying prisoners’ mail will not arbitrarily interfere with the prisoner’s correspondence or privacy. Prison staff already have the power to open and read non-exempt mail under section 47C of the Corrections Act. By enabling mail to be copied, the Bill will ensure that prisoners can receive their mail more promptly.

The proposed amendment engages the right to privacy as it will authorise prison staff to open mail (and therefore potentially to read that mail), make a copy of the mail and then destroy the original mail. In my view, the amendment does not limit the right to privacy as any interference with privacy or correspondence will not be unlawful or arbitrary. The opening, copying or destruction of a prisoner’s mail will not be unlawful as it will be expressly authorised under the Corrections Act.

The purpose of copying and destroying mail is to reduce contraband in prisons and in so doing promote the security of prisons and the safety and welfare of prisoners and prison staff. Destroying the original mail will ensure that any illicit drugs or other contraband is also destroyed.

I do not consider that there are any less restrictive means available to achieve this purpose. As an alternative to destroying mail, the mail could be returned to the sender. However, this would not result in the destruction of any illicit drugs contained in the mail and may pose unacceptable risks to the safety and welfare of persons who reside with the sender. For example, a person who opens mail addressed to the sender may be exposed to illicit drugs that were included in the mail. This risk would be exacerbated if a child opened the mail.

An additional alternative may be to place the original mail in prison storage for the prisoner to retrieve upon their release. However, this is not possible for prisoners serving long prison sentences. This may also result in the prisoner taking possession of illicit drugs upon their release, which would pose unacceptable risks to the prisoner and the community.

The Bill provides prison staff with a discretion as to whether or not to dispose of original mail that has been copied. This would allow for consideration of whether the original mail should be retained and provided to the prisoner after being thoroughly inspected for contraband. For example, this may occur where an item could not be replaced by a copy (such as a birth certificate or other document with evidentiary value) or was highly sentimental. By providing this flexibility, the Bill ensures that original mail can be retained where circumstances warrant it.

In my view, the destruction of mail is not arbitrary given the discretionary nature of the power and the important objective to be achieved. Insofar as the right to privacy may be limited by the amendment, I consider that the amendment is a reasonable and proportionate response to achieving the important objective of keeping prisons safe. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the amendment is compatible with the right to privacy.

Right to property (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. A person’s mail could be considered their property. This amendment engages this right as it enables the confiscation and destruction of a prisoner’s mail and thereby deprives them of their property. However, the deprivation of prisoners’ property will be in accordance with law as the Corrections Act will expressly authorise the destruction of original mail. In my view, the right to property is therefore not limited by the amendment.

Humane treatment when deprived of liberty (section 22)

Section 22(1) of the Charter states that persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. This right requires that, once people are detained or deprived of their liberty, they are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. This is a positive right that broadly reflects the idea that prisoners ought not be subjected to hardship or constraint other than the hardship or constraint that results from their deprivation of liberty.

This right may be engaged insofar as the power to copy and destroy mail applies to all non-exempt mail, regardless of the level of risk associated with a particular item of mail, and may result in unduly harsh consequences where mail of significant evidentiary, monetary or sentimental value is destroyed. However, I consider that this right is not limited by the amendment as prisoners will receive a true copy of their mail which will replicate the mail to the extent practicable. This will include receiving a colour copy of the mail where the original mail was in colour and it is reasonably practicable to provide a colour copy. Further, the amendment provides a discretionary power to prison staff, which will enable original mail to be retained where the officer considers it appropriate in the circumstances.

Protection of families (section 17), freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14), cultural rights (section 19) and freedom of expression (section 15)

Section 17(1) of the Charter provides that families are the fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected. Section 14(1)(b) relevantly provides that people have the right to demonstrate their religion or belief, including in community with others. Section 19(1) provides that people must not be denied the right to enjoy their culture or religion in community with others, and section 19(2) recognises the distinct cultural rights of Aboriginal people. Section 15(2)(b) relevantly provides that people have the right to seek and receive information and ideas, including in writing.

Each of these rights is engaged by the proposed amendment, in that the mail prisoners receive from their family, social networks or members of their religion or culture plays an important role in maintaining their family and other relationships, in observing and practising their culture and religion in community with others, and in seeking and receiving information and ideas from others.

The proposed amendment is likely to promote these rights, in that it will allow prisoners to receive true copies of their mail and therefore the substantive content of the mail, in a form that is as close to the original as possible, without the delays associated with inspecting and testing it for contraband.

Right to life (section 9) and protection of children (section 17)

Section 9 of the Charter provides that a person has the right to life and a right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. The right to life includes a positive duty on the State to take reasonable steps to protect life. This is particularly relevant to prisoners, who are in the care of the State. Section 17(2) provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child. The protection of children includes the care, protection and safety of a child and the child’s right to health. This includes children living within a prison in mother/child units, children visiting prisons, youth prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in an adult prison, and youth prisoners who have been transferred to an adult prison from the youth justice system.

The proposed amendment will promote these rights, in that the purpose of the amendment is to protect prisoners, prison staff and other persons within prisons by reducing the risk of contraband, including illicit drugs, from entering prisons.

Amendments relating to workers compensation

The amendments to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (WIRC Act) and the Accident Compensation Act (AC Act) are necessary to ensure that injured workers are not financially disadvantaged in terms of their compensation entitlements due to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions have seen a reduction in many workers’ hours and earnings. If a worker is injured at work, their pre-injury average weekly earnings are taken into account by insurers in calculating the weekly compensation payable. Insurers consider the ‘relevant period’ when assessing the pre-injury average weekly earnings, which is the 52 weeks prior to the injury.

To ensure that a reduction in a worker’s hours and earnings due to the COVID-19 pandemic is not factored into the entitlement calculation, this Bill will exclude the period between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2020 from that assessment. This exclusion will only apply to those workers whose hours or earnings have been reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The human rights under the Charter that are relevant are:

• the right to recognition and equality before the law under section 8; and

• property rights under section 20.

Right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law, is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. This means that laws, policies and programs should not be discriminatory, and also that public authorities should not apply or enforce laws, policies and programs in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. ‘Discrimination’ for the purposes of the equality right means discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). The EO Act defines discrimination in section 7 to include direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute, including, relevantly, age, gender identity and sex, disability, parental status or status as a carer, and race. ‘Disability’ is defined in the EO Act to include disabilities of a physical, mental and psychological nature.

It is possible that clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill (which amend section 154 of the WIRC Act and 5AA of the AC Act, respectively) may have the effect of indirectly discriminating in favour of injured workers with protected attributes to the extent that such persons are represented at a higher proportions in jobs where the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a reduction in earnings, as compared to injured workers whose jobs may have been affected by non-COVID-19 related reasons. To the extent that clauses 53 and 54 involve indirect discrimination, those clauses will engage the right in section 8 of the Charter.

However, section 8(4) of the Charter provides that measures taken for the purpose of assisting persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination. Further, section 12 of the EO Act provides that a person does not discriminate by taking a special measure, which is a measure taken for the purposes of realising substantive equality for people with relevant attributes. To the extent that persons with protected attributes will be disproportionately affected by clauses 53 and 54, I consider that those clauses constitute a special measure and will thus be compatible with the right to equality in section 8 of the Charter.

To the extent that any limitation to the right to equality is occasioned by the operation of clauses 53 and 54 by treating workers differently according to whether they have experienced reduced hours and earnings due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or for other reasons, I consider that any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified. The proposed amendments are intended to create equity amongst injured workers over the life of their claim. Further, these clauses have been specifically tailored to mitigate the particular impact on workers who have experienced reduced hours or earnings before their injury due to the extraordinary circumstances posed by the global COVID-19 pandemic. The clauses will apply only for the limited period starting on 1 March 2020 and ending on 31 December 2020. Accordingly, in my view, any limit on the right to equality that may be imposed by these clauses is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

Property rights (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property will occur in accordance with law for the purposes of section 20 of the Charter if the law is publicly accessible, clear and certain.

The Bill may engage the property right on the basis that it may result in an employer paying more compensation than they might otherwise be required to pay, absent the operation of clauses 53 and 54 of the Bill. However, the property right as protected by the Charter will only be engaged to the extent that an employer who is required to pay compensation in such a situation is a natural person. This is because section 3 of the Charter provides that ‘person’ means a ‘human being’ for the purposes of the Charter.

In any event, even if the property right is engaged, I consider that no limit will be occasioned by the Bill. This is because any assessment of compensation that results in an employer, who is a natural person, paying more compensation than they otherwise would, would occur in accordance with a law which is clear, transparent and precise.

Amendments related to Forest Act

Overview

The Bill amends the Forests Act 1958 (Forests Act) to allow the Secretary to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to enter into an agreement or an arrangement with FRV to enable the Secretary and specified persons to undertake specified activities within the FRV fire district in accordance with the circumstances specified in the agreement.

The Bill also amends the Forests Act to provide that the Secretary to DELWP and specified persons authorised under the agreement or arrangement will have immunity from certain liabilities in carrying out fire management activities in accordance with the agreement or arrangement.

Human Rights Issues

Human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill

the right to property (section 20)

For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

‘Property’ for the purposes of section 20 of the Charter has a broad meaning and includes both real and personal property and any right or interest regarded as property under Victorian law. Therefore, property encompasses legal interests and contractual rights. The term ‘deprived’ is similarly broad and may include being stripped of ownership or not enjoying exclusive use of rights.

The Bill amends the Forests Act to ensure that the Secretary to DELWP and specified persons can undertake specific actions in the FRV fire district when the Secretary to DELWP enters into an agreement or an arrangement with Fire Rescue Victoria. The FRV fire district is defined in section 4(1) of the FRV Act to be the land in Schedule 2 of the Act and includes the port of Melbourne within the meaning of the Port Management Act 1995, and any rivers or waterways which are designated as being within the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district by the Governor in Council by proclamation published in the Government Gazette.

The Bill will allow for some additional, specified personnel to carry out a subset of the fire management activities already authorised by legislation to occur in the FRV fire district, with appropriate legal protections. This will allow firefighters to take timely action to effectively protect communities and the environment.

Whilst the Bill has potential to impact on the right to property by authorising individuals to enter into private property and carry out fire management activities, any impact is considered reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to public safety and impacts to persons and the community from affects fires may have. Any impacts on the right to property, to the limited extent that they occur, are also offset by the benefit that effective firefighting provides in terms of the protection of property.

I consider that the provision is consistent with the right to property under section 20 of the Charter.

The Hon Gayle Tierney MP

Minister for Training and Skills

Minister for Higher Education

Second reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:14): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Ms PULFORD: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020 makes important changes to a range of legislation. These measures, importantly, include reforms to further the rights of victims and their ability to tell their stories and strengthen other victims of crime legislation.

In addition, other measures in the Bill include important changes to existing legislation. The amendments will:

• implement model nationally agreed laws on defamation;

• protect workers entitlements in compensation claims affected by COVID-19;

• support the national High Risk Terrorist Offender Scheme and the power of prison officers in certain security matters;

• clarify the ability of forest fire fighters to continue to do their job effectively.

I will deal with each of these matters in turn.

Allowing victims of sex offence to tell their stories

Victim-survivors who share their experiences of assault and abuse do so much more than fill column inches. They shine light on institutionalised wrongs. They expose perpetrators who take advantage of a position of power. They empower other victim-survivors to come forward and seek justice.

I pay tribute to all victim-survivors who have the courage to speak publicly about the profound trauma and violence of experiencing sexual assault.

It is not a source of shame. It is a sign of strength.

We have listened to victim-survivors, who have movingly and compellingly told us current processes are not working for them.

In response to their advocacy, the Bill will amend section 4 of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 to make it easier for victim-survivors of sexual offences to speak publicly about their experiences, and control when and how their stories are published by others.

As the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) Contempt of Court Report makes clear, the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act is a complex and confusing piece of legislation in need of reform and modernisation. This Bill will implement the first stage of a planned overhaul of this Act.

Since 1991, it has been an offence to publish details that are likely to identify an alleged victim of a sexual offence. The offence was intended as a safeguard to protect the privacy and anonymity of victim-survivors, so that fear of public identification would not deter the reporting and prosecution of sexual offences. Nonetheless, the Act allows publication in certain, specified circumstances. While these exemptions were intended to provide clear pathways for victim-survivors or others to publish identifying details, it has become clear that the law is overly complex and does not give sufficient agency to victim-survivors over their stories.

Victorian society has changed significantly in how it views and understands sexual offending since these laws were introduced. Much stigma and shame still attached to victim-survivors of sexual offences in the early 1990s, and as such the original laws did not properly take account of the need to ensure that victim-survivors were not prevented from talking about their experiences or authorising others to do so on their behalf. Importantly, the way that information is published has also changed substantially since the introduction of the prohibition in 1991. Information can now be published and shared instantly online or on social media, and every individual has the ability to be a publisher.

There is still more work to be done to remove the stigma surrounding sexual offences, improve the rates of reporting for these significant crimes and address the gender inequality and attitudes underlying this offending behaviour. The current reference being considered by the VLRC, regarding sexual offences, will make important recommendations to this end. Nonetheless, societal views and our understanding of the experience of sexual offence victim-survivors have progressed, and the law should at a minimum reflect this. In particular, the benefits of storytelling as part of victim-survivor healing, resilience and empowerment are now much better understood.

In developing these reforms, the government heard from many victim-survivors and their advocates, as well as other stakeholders. I would like to particularly thank and acknowledge these victim-survivors and stakeholders for their generosity, time and input, which have been invaluable in this reform process.

Adult victim-survivors

The Bill will make a range of important reforms to enhance victim-survivors’ ability to tell their stories. These changes will maximise the agency and autonomy of victim-survivors to determine if, when and how their identity and experiences are published. The experiences of victim-survivors are deeply personal, and they should therefore have control over the way in which their stories are made public.

Sexual offences are confronting, invasive and reprehensible crimes. These offences have a significant and lasting impact and can continue to cause profound distress throughout the victim-survivor’s lifetime. Unsurprisingly, some victim-survivors may wish never to share their experiences with others. Consistent with the recommendation of the VLRC in its Contempt of Court Report, the Bill will retain the substance of the current publication offence, to respect and protect victim-survivors’ right to privacy if they wish to remain anonymous.

However, as we have heard during consultations, the process of sharing stories can also be a powerful and important part of the healing process for some victim-survivors. It can help other victim-survivors to come to terms with their own experiences and empower them to come forward and report the crimes committed against them to police. The Bill will therefore make a range of important changes to better enable victim-survivors to publish their own experiences, and to give permission for others to do so.

First, the Bill will make it clear that victim-survivors, both adults and children, may lawfully self-publish information likely to identify them as a victim-survivor of a sexual offence. Victim-survivors may choose to self-publish details on social media, for example, as part of their process of recovery and healing, and these reforms will make clear that this conduct does not constitute an offence under the JPRA.

Second, the Bill will clarify when a third party, such as a media organisation, may publish material that identifies a victim-survivor. In relation to most adult victim-survivors, publication will be allowed if the victim-survivor provides permission to be identified. Just because a victim-survivor has self-published their story, this will not constitute permission for a third party to do so. Rather, the publisher will be required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the victim-survivor being identified has given permission for the specific publication.

Importantly, the Bill will also allow victim-survivors to tailor their permission—this will allow a victim-survivor to give permission for some of their details to be published (e.g. their name) but not others (e.g. their image), or to limit publication in other ways.

The Bill will require that the victim-survivor’s permission is given in writing. This will act as an important safeguard for both the victim-survivor and publisher, by providing written evidence that permission has been obtained, and of any limits or conditions imposed by the victim-survivor in tailoring their permission.

These reforms will enable victim-survivors and others to publish information without the need for any involvement of a court. This respects the autonomy of victim-survivors to make their own decisions about the publication of their identity and stories, and avoids the potential trauma and distress involved in a court-based process.

However, the government recognises that there will be cases where it is not possible for a victim-survivor to provide permission for their identifying information to be published. For example, an adult victim-survivor may not have capacity to provide permission, due to serious mental impairment. This is an all-too-real scenario—for example, we know that sexual abuse is a prevalent form of elder abuse in aged care settings. While sexual offending against older people is—like all sexual offences—underreported, a 2019 KPMG report indicated that as many as 1,730 incidents of resident on resident unlawful sexual contact may occur nationally in aged care settings each year. Unfortunately, the things that may prevent older victim-survivors from providing permission to publish—such as dementia or other conditions—are the same factors that make them more vulnerable to these horrifying crimes in the first place.

In these cases where victim-survivors do not have the capacity to provide permission themselves, it remains necessary and appropriate for the court to retain a role in granting permission for publication. However, the court will be expressly required to take into account the wishes, if any, expressed by the victim-survivor in these cases. The Bill will also make it clear that the views of the alleged offender (or convicted offender, depending on the stage of proceedings) are not to be considered by the court in deciding whether to authorise publication.

The reforms relating to adult victim-survivors are consistent with recommendations of the VLRC Contempt of Court Report.

Child victim-survivors

The Bill will provide specific, tailored provisions to give victim-survivors under the age of 18 years more autonomy over their stories.

In proposing these reforms, the Government acknowledges that there are a range of different views on how this law should treat child victim-survivors. Indeed, the approach in the Bill is different to the model described in the VLRC’s report, which recommended that child victim-survivors be required to seek court permission before publicising their stories.

Victim-survivors and their advocates expressed a broad range of views on this issue during consultations. Some would prefer to allow children (especially older children) to make publication decisions themselves, and to avoid court involvement and the potential distress and trauma associated with this. There was also concern expressed about the impact that a court-based process could have in silencing the voices of child victim-survivors, preventing their experiences and the impact of child sexual offending from being better considered and understood. Others consider court oversight as an important safeguard for children, who may be pressured into publishing details by others or who may not fully comprehend the consequences of having their details published.

The Bill balances these different views by allowing victim-survivors aged under 18 to make decisions for themselves where possible and appropriate, with appropriate safeguards in place to reflect the potential vulnerability of younger children. This approach is consistent with the Bill’s objective to provide victim-survivors with greater autonomy over their own stories.

Consistent with the arrangements for adult victim-survivors, the publication offence will not apply to a child victim-survivor who self-publishes their identity. This reflects the practical reality that child victim-survivors are now able to freely self-publish online, and may inadvertently commit an offence if this protection were not also afforded to them.

The Bill will also allow children to give permission to a third party to publish their identifying details, where they are able to provide this permission, and they have the support of an independent authorised person to do so. This person (who will initially be either a doctor or a psychologist) would, in appropriate cases, provide a ‘supporting statement’ indicating that the child understands the long-term implications of giving permission for publication and the consequences of losing anonymity. This supporting statement will need to be provided alongside the child victim-survivor’s written permission in order for a third-party to lawfully publish identifying information. Doctors and psychologists have the necessary expertise to make this assessment and are subject to professional and ethical obligations. Following further stakeholder consultation, additional classes of people qualified to provide a supporting statement may be prescribed in regulations. This might include professionals who are already engaged with child victim-survivors, so that as far as possible children are able to seek this assessment from an adult who already knows of their experiences and with whom they have an existing relationship of trust and confidence. These provisions are similar to recent amendments to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996 that apply to the process of altering records of sex on a child’s birth certificate.

As is the case in relation to adult victim-survivors, in cases where the child victim-survivor cannot provide permission themselves, a third party may also publish the identifying details of a child victim-survivor if they obtain permission from the court.

Protection of other victim-survivors who may be identified through publication

Sadly, we know that there are cases where there are multiple victim-survivors of a single offender, including cases where victims are members of the same family or community. In these, it is possible that the publication of the identity and experiences of one victim may indirectly lead to the identification of other victims.

The reforms in the Bill will protect the identity of each individual victim, to ensure that no victim can be identified without providing permission for this to occur. In cases involving multiple victims, the permission of each victim likely to be identified by the publication must be obtained. Similarly, if one victim-survivor wishes to self-publish details likely to lead to the identification of a second victim-survivor, they can only do so where they have first obtained the other victim’s written permission. This ensures that the privacy and anonymity of each victim-survivor, and their right to determine when and how their experiences are shared, are equally protected and respected under the law.

In addition, it should be noted that these provisions operate alongside other laws that may affect the ability to legally publish information. The courts may issue suppression orders to protect the identity of a person, and other laws may apply in a given case. The law of sub judice contempt will also continue to apply. The changes in this bill do not set aside or remove those other obligations.

Deceased victim-survivors

The Bill will implement interim reforms to clarify and address immediate issues with how the laws apply to the identification of details of victim-survivors who are deceased. However, the Government acknowledges that further, more substantial reforms are required in this area. These will be progressed separately in 2021.

The VLRC recommended that the publication offence should cease upon a victim-survivor’s death, with interested parties such as family members being able to apply to a court to extend the prohibition. The effect of this approach would be that the legislative anonymity of a victim-survivor is extinguished upon their passing, unless a surviving relative secures court approval for it to continue. This recommendation will be considered further. It raises a series of policy questions and could give rise to unintended and undesirable consequences if implemented as proposed. For example, if the protection of the deceased victim-survivor’s identity were to be lifted immediately, this could expose family members to additional distress and trauma, by requiring them to seek continuing protection of the victim’s identity during the grieving period immediately following the death. Similarly, it could mean that the victim-survivor’s identity may be published before a family member or other person has the opportunity to seek continuing protection.

To address these difficult and sensitive issues, and consistent with the principles and objectives underpinning the reforms in this Bill, the Government will work to develop further reforms that:

• appropriately recognise and respect the grieving period immediately following the death of a victim-survivor, to ensure that family members and others are not forced to take immediate steps in order for ongoing protection of the victim-survivor’s identity to be secured;

• minimise or remove the need for a court-based approval process, in recognition of the potential distress and trauma this may cause to family members;

• ensure that the views, if any, expressed by a deceased victim-survivor during their lifetime are considered and respected; and

• balance the ongoing privacy interests of victim-survivors and their families against the broader public interest in freedom of expression.

Consultation with victim-survivors, family members of deceased victims and other stakeholders will help ensure that the right balance is struck on these issues.

In the interim, the Bill will clarify that the prohibition on publication continues following the victim’s death, while at the same time providing a clear mechanism to obtain permission to publish identifying information in all cases where the victim-survivor has died. In considering applications relating to a deceased victim-survivor, the Bill makes clear the courts are to have regard to the victim’s views (as expressed during their lifetime, if known) and those of their family members. In line with the other court application provisions, the court must not consider the views of the offender in deciding whether to authorise publication, including in cases where the offender is a family member of the victim.

Immunity for past publications

In introducing these reforms, the Government recognises that many victim-survivors and others may have previously published identifying details, and in doing so may have inadvertently and unknowingly committed an offence. This includes where victim-survivors may have self-published their own identifying details, or where third parties, such as media organisations, have done so with the victim-survivor’s permission. These examples do not represent the type of conduct this law was put in place to address.

However unlikely it may be that any action would ever be taken in relation to these cases, we recognise that victim-survivors and others may be distressed by the fact they have technically committed an offence and the possibility—however remote—that they could be prosecuted. In view of this, the Bill will provide immunity for past self-publications by victim-survivors, or third-party publications done with the permission of the adult victim-survivor identified. There is no requirement for past permissions to be in writing. The retrospective protection will apply from when the publication offence commenced in 1991.

Alongside the legislative reforms, the government will continue to explore ways to better support victim-survivors to navigate the court application process, where this is required, and more generally within the justice system. I am pleased to report that specific legal advice lines have recently commenced to support victim-survivors in relation to publication issues, at the Women’s Legal Service and Victoria Legal Aid.

Implementing nationally agreed amendments to model defamation provisions in Victoria

The Bill will amend the Defamation Act 2005 and the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to implement important nationally-agreed reforms to Victoria’s model defamation laws. The reforms are the product of a national review of the uniform defamation laws conducted by the Council of Attorneys-General.

The media landscape has changed rapidly since the model defamation provisions were enacted 15 years ago. Recognising this, the review identified a range of reforms to update and improve the model defamation laws to ensure that they continue to strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and protection for personal reputation. The Bill will deliver on Victoria’s commitment to implement those reforms.

The Bill introduces important new protections for academic publications and publications on matters of public interest. A new defence will protect publications concerning issues of public interest where the defendant reasonably believed that the publication was in the public interest. This recognises that reporting on and discussion of matters of public interest is critical to our democratic system. Similarly, a new defence for peer-reviewed statements and assessments published in a scientific or academic journal recognises the importance of academic and scientific dialogue in a free and open society.

The Bill will introduce a new “serious harm threshold” as an additional element of the cause of action for defamation. This will require plaintiffs to establish that the publication of allegedly defamatory matter has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. This important reform will operate to prevent trivial or frivolous defamation claims at the outset, reducing the burden of unwarranted defamation litigation on businesses, individuals, and the courts.

The Bill will modernise defamation law to better respond to the rise of digital platforms and communications. For example, the Bill will introduce a ‘single publication rule’ to ensure that the limitation period for defamation actions is consistent in its application to digital and non-digital publications. This will mean the one-year limitation period will commence from the date the digital publication is uploaded for access or sent to a recipient, instead of restarting each time the material is downloaded by a third party, as is currently the case.

The Bill will encourage early resolution of disputes by refining pre-trial procedures. For example, the Bill makes it mandatory for an aggrieved person to issue a written concerns notice with adequate particulars of the complaint to the publisher prior to commencing proceedings. The Bill also strengthens opportunities for informal resolution of defamation disputes by refining and clarifying the “offer to make amends” procedure. These reforms will help and encourage parties to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation, easing the burden on courts and reducing the cost and time taken for individuals to resolve defamation disputes.

Finally, the Bill will clarify and refine the operation of existing provisions, to ensure they operate as intended. This includes clarifying the operation of the existing cap on damages, and the defences of contextual truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege.

The reforms represent the most significant modernisation and reform of defamation law in Australia since the introduction of the Model Defamation Provisions in 2005. They will equip our defamation laws to respond to the rise in digital publications and social media usage, and ensure that defamation law continues to strike an appropriate balance between protection of freedom of speech and discussion of matters of public interest on the one hand, and providing fair and effective remedies for people whose reputations are harmed by defamatory publications on the other.

Amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act

The Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (Tribunal) provides financial assistance to victims of violent crime under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (VOCA Act).

Increased demand at the Tribunal has resulted in delays in determining applications and an increase in the number of ‘pending’ applications (known as the ‘backlog’). Notwithstanding the significant efforts of the Tribunal and the introduction of several efficiency measures, the backlog compromises the Tribunal’s efforts to provide timely assistance to victims.

Accordingly, Part 9 of the Bill amends the VOCA Act with the aim of supporting the Tribunal to reduce the backlog by increasing flexibility in decision-making. The Chief Magistrate’s power to delegate final award decisions will be broadened to include a new class of Tribunal staff called ‘Tribunal officers’. Tribunal officers will be legally qualified or have the requisite skills or experience to carry out their functions, and have the power to obtain information and make final award decisions.

Part 9 of the Bill also provides rights of review in alignment with the existing rights and the Tribunal’s rule making power, including review of the final determination at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The amendments also provide Tribunal officers with the same statutory immunity as existing delegates and Tribunal members.

Amendments to the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act

The Victims of Crime Consultative Committee (Committee) is established under the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 (VOCC Act) and advises the Attorney-General on victim of crime issues and improvements to victim of crime support services.

Part 10 of the Bill modernises Committee term lengths, remuneration and reappointment. Currently, Committee members who are victims of crime are not expressly entitled to remuneration. Expressly clarifying remuneration for these members recognises their valuable contribution and aligns with other advisory committees.

While the Committee Chairperson may be reappointed, the VOCC Act limits Committee appointments, including terms of members who are victims of crime to two years. Enabling appointments for up to three years allows more time for members to build their expertise and make more meaningful contributions, and aligns with other advisory committees.

Currently, Committee members who are victims of crime cannot be reappointed. Enabling reappointments for one further term of up to six months only, provides greater continuity of operations for the Committee while limiting potential re-traumatisation that might arise from multiple terms and ensuring that membership is regularly refreshed to support a diversity of perspectives and life experience.

Part 10 of the Bill also includes transitional provisions that stipulate that the existing Committee Chairperson is taken to be appointed for three years and members who are victims of crime may be remunerated and provided allowances as determined by the Attorney-General.

The term of the existing Committee Chairperson would expire before the terms of members who are victims of crime. This misalignment in expiry dates fragments the Committee and creates a less efficient appointments process. Accordingly, the transitional provisions also align the term expiry dates for the existing Committee Chairperson and members who are victims of crime, to end on 16 April 2023.

Ensuring compensation payable to injured workers takes account of the economic impacts of COVID-19

The outbreak of COVID-19 has had a significant impact on all members of the Victorian community, including those who are particularly vulnerable such as injured workers with reduced hours and earnings.

The ongoing lockdown and restrictions have had a direct impact on the weekly compensation an injured worker may receive. In recognition of this, the amendments proposed to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and the Accident Compensation Act 1985 will amend the relevant period from which an injured worker’s pre-injury average weekly earnings are calculated, to exclude the period between 1 March–31 December 2020 where this period results in reduced earnings for the worker due to a COVID-19 reason.

The Bill will assist workers who have lodged claims and will also ensure that any future claims will have the COVID-19 affected period exempt from their weekly income entitlement calculation, if they have experienced a reduction in their hours or earnings. These amendments are necessary to ensure workers that are injured during the COVID-19 pandemic are not disadvantaged over the life of their workers compensation claim.

Supporting the effective functioning of the Commonwealth’s High-Risk Terrorist Offender Scheme

The first reform supports the Commonwealth’s High-Risk Terrorist Offenders scheme. That scheme enables a State Supreme Court to make a continuing detention order in respect of a convicted terrorist offender who poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence at the end of their prison sentence. A continuing detention order commits the offender to detention in prison for the duration of the order. These orders can last up to three years.

The Bill makes a number of consequential amendments to the Corrections Act 1986 to support the scheme, including to confirm that the Attorney-General or Minister for Corrections may enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth to accommodate a terrorist offender in a Victorian prison, and to provide for the treatment and management of terrorist offenders in Victoria. The Government will continue to work with the Commonwealth on this important scheme to ensure the national counter-terrorism framework is effective in keeping the community safe from terrorism. 

These provisions are broadly consistent with those introduced in New South Wales in relation to continuing detention orders.

Providing powers for copying non-exempt prisoner mail and destruction of the original correspondence

The Bill will further strengthen powers for prison staff to deal with mail sent to prisoners that may pose security risks. The Bill enables staff to copy mail, provide the copy to the prisoner and destroy the original. Prisoner mail is increasingly being used to attempt to introduce contraband into the prison system, including drugs. The Bill provides an appropriate response and will help keep our prisons safe—for prisoners and staff.

The Government recognises the importance of upholding the integrity of correspondence of a professional or legal nature. In order to ensure that the administration of justice is not compromised, the reform will not apply to correspondence from persons and bodies such as the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian Human Rights Commissioner, IBAC, legal practitioners and other similar professional bodies.

Ensuring the safe and effective operation of Victoria’s fire services

The Bill makes amendments to the Forests Act 1958 to allow the Secretary to DELWP to enter into an agreement with Fire Rescue Victoria relating to relevant Forest Fire Management Victoria personnel carrying out fire management activities Fire Rescue Victoria fire district under such an agreement.

Forest firefighters are responsible for fire prevention and fire suppression in State forests, National Parks and on protected public land. Under current legislation, they do not have the authorisation to operate in the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district outside the fire protected area. This could expose them to personal liability for claims of injury or damage if they do respond or prevent them from attending fire in the FRV fire district outside the fire protected area—putting the community at risk.

Under agreement, forest firefighters may be called upon to act in these circumstances when a fire:

• is burning, or at risk of starting, and no members of Fire Rescue Victoria are present.

• starts on land where forest firefighters are likely to the be the first responders, such as Melbourne’s water catchments.

• crosses a border from national park, State Forest or protected public land into the Fire Rescue Victoria fire district.

These amendments will allow forest firefighters to operate with the appropriate legal protections and will ensure Victoria’s forest firefighters can continue to effectively protect our bush and regional communities.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:14): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr O’Donohue:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.

Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem) (18:14): I have one last message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Marine Safety Act 2010 to provide for the establishment of the Better Boating Fund and for other purposes’.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:15): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:15): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter) I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020 (the Bill).

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

Overview

The Bill amends the Marine Safety Act 2010 (Act) to establish of a fund, called the Better Boating Fund. The Bill sets out what moneys may be paid into the Fund, what moneys in the Fund are to be expended on and associated reporting requirements.

The purposes for which moneys in the Fund may be used for are—

(a) the provision and maintenance of boating facilities and services for the public;

(b) the provision of boating safety, boating education and boating promotion programs for the public;

(c) the safe use of recreational vessels;

(d) the safe use of state waters

The Bill also provides that certain fees do not need to be set according to the cost of providing the relevant service.

Human Rights Issues

No Charter rights are impermissibly limited by the Bill.

The Bill provides for an annual report including moneys paid out of the Fund, and the purposes and allocation of that money, to be published on the Department of Transport’s internet site with the approval of the Minister. In the event that particular projects that have been funded are described, it is unlikely that the descriptions will include any personal information, even if the recipient is a natural person. However, an applicant for funding would reasonably expect personal information to be recorded and would be aware that details of grant funding for particular projects might be made publicly available. However, a person’s privacy is neither unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with as a result of any of the provisions in the Bill and as such, in my opinion, the right to privacy in section 13 of the Charter is not limited.

The Hon. Jaala Pulford

Minister for Employment

Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy

Minister for Small Business

Second reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:15): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Motion agreed to.

Ms PULFORD: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

Delivering on our election commitments

This government has committed to making boating better for the hundreds of thousands of Victorians that partake in this very popular recreational activity.

We’ve already started making improvements. We’ve made the use of public boat ramps free across Victoria and we are investing $39.6 million in 2019/20 to upgrade boating facilities at Queenscliff, Rhyll, Mordialloc, Hastings, Cowes Jetty and Point Richards.

We have also recently completed a review on boating facility management. We look forward to introducing measures to improve how boating facility management is undertaken based on the outcomes of that review.

These are actions that we committed to the boating community that we would undertake. We are delivering on these commitments.

This Bill will enable another commitment to be acquitted.

Our boaters have long called for improvements to be made to ensure that all revenue that is raised from marine licenses and vessel registration is returned to the recreational boating sector. The culminating ‘ramp rage’ campaign in the lead up to the last election made it very clear that our boaters are demanding more from Government to improve the condition of our boating facilities and boating safety.

Our boating stakeholders have told us that they demand certainty—that is: a Fund that holds the revenue collected from marine licensing and vessel registration fees and provides that these monies can only be spent on facilities and services that benefit the boating community.

Our boating stakeholders have also told us that they demand transparency—the Government must report on how monies deposited into the Fund are spent.

The Andrews Labor Government understands that certainty and transparency are the foundations for developing and maintaining a constructive partnership with the boating industry to improve safety, improve facilities and promote growth.

This Bill will establish the Better Boating Fund and the Treasurer will transfer the equivalent of all revenue collected from marine licensing and vessel registration fees into the fund. This is approximately $31 million per year and is growing in proportion to the growth in recreational boating activities.

We understand that there is an entire system around the boating experience. There must be good facilities to launch and retrieve boats, but we also need to ensure that we keep our boaters safe while on the water. The priorities that will be funded through the Better Boating Fund will include facility upgrades as well as boating safety and education measures.

We have listened to the concerns of our boating stakeholders about how the Better Boating Fund will be allocated. As the fund is intended to exist in perpetuity, specifying allocations within the legislation would cause rigidities and distortions over time that would impede the implementation of priorities that are agreed with our boating stakeholders.

How revenue deposited in the fund will be expended, once established, will be determined in close consultation with our boating stakeholders, to ensure that their priorities are taken into consideration.

The development of a boating strategy will be fundamental in helping determine the priorities for investment and it is my intention that this will be co-designed with key boating stakeholders. This will be developed as a matter of priority once the legislation has been introduced.

Our boating community deserves improvements that will one day lead to the best facilities in the country. That is our vision. Delivering on the Better Boating Fund is the start of this work and is critical to improving the Victorian recreational boating experience.

The Bill

This Bill amends the Marine Safety Act 2010.

The first clause specifies that the purpose of the Bill as to provide for the establishment of the Better Boating Fund and to make it clear that fees imposed under the Marine Safety Act are not limited to an amount related to the cost of providing a service.

The second clause provides the Government with the capacity to commence the operation of the new fund and the other amendments at a time when the Government chooses to proclaim them. The commencement date, however, can be no later than 1 October 2021.

The third clause inserts new Part 8.1 into the Marine Safety Act 2010. The new Part consists of two new sections.

The first new section requires the establishment of the Better Boating Fund and authorises money to be paid into the fund:

• by the Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer;

• if authorised to be paid into the fund under the Marine Safety Act or any other Act; or

• that is appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Better Boating Fund.

It is specified that all interest earned while monies are held in the Better Boating Fund is required to be paid into the Better Boating Fund.

This new section (271G) also specifies what may be paid out of the Fund. Money may be paid out of the fund to provide and maintain boating facilities and related services; boating safety; boating education; boating promotion programs; the safe use of recreational vessels and the safe use of state waters.

The second new section (271H) imposes reporting requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Transport. Subject to the approval of the report by the Minister, the Secretary will be required to publish an annual report by 1st October each year. The annual report will include the total amount of money paid into and out of the Better Boating Fund, the purposes and allocation of any money paid out of the Better Boating Fund; how much money that is carried forward to the next financial year; and the total amount of fees received for the registration of vessels and issue and renewal of marine licences. A comparison to the previous year must also be reported.

The final clauses relate to fees and charges. The amendments specified in these clauses remove all doubt that fees specified in regulations made under the Marine Safety Act 2010 will not be limited to an amount that is related to the cost of providing a regulatory service. This is necessary to ensure that there is clear legal authority for fees to be set (or maintained) at a level that generates revenue over and above the cost of providing regulatory services, for example, above the direct cost of administering marine licensing requirements.

Marine licensing fees currently generate revenue significantly higher than the direct costs of administering marine licensing requirements. The Fund will provide certainty and transparency as to how this excess revenue will be used to benefit the boating community.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:15): As we sail into the adjournment, I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr Rich-Phillips:

That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (18:16): In the afternoon Mr O’Donohue raised a point of order about an answer to his supplementary question from Minister Stitt. I have checked and gone through the question and the supplementary, and I understand Ms Stitt indicated that the matter is for the Minister for Health, so my understanding is that she answered the question in the answer. There is no point of order.

Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, in relation to the reinstated question and answers I received from the Leader of the Government this afternoon, I do not believe the second question, the supplementary, was answered. I am wondering if you could please review that and provide some advice to the house.

The PRESIDENT: I believe the proper way is to send an email, and I will respond to it.

Ms Crozier: On the point of order, President, I could not raise it at question time. It was given to me late, so I could not actually raise it at that time. I believe that the supplementary, which asked for a specific cost, was not answered. So I would ask if you could review that, and I ask that it be reinstated.

The PRESIDENT: Well, I need to review the written response, Ms Crozier. If you can email it to me, I will review it.

Adjournment

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:18): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

COVID-19

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (18:18): I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Creative Industries, Minister Pearson, and it relates to the opening of cinemas in my electorate. I note that this was raised on the adjournment last night, but I also wish to add my support to the cinemas in my electorate. There are some fantastic cinemas, from Sorrento to Rosebud, Mornington, Warragul and Sale, and near the border of my electorate there are major cinemas that help service my electorate, the complexes at Karingal, Frankston and the Latrobe Valley as well.

I understand there are 98 cinema complexes in Victoria that employ 5000 people and that the cinemas have been open now in Queensland, New South Wales and elsewhere for some considerable time and to the best of my knowledge have not been the source of any COVID infection or transmission. This is not surprising, given that when it comes to tracking and tracing, cinemas were doing this long before the Victorian government even thought about it. Because when you book a cinema ticket online you can reserve a seat, you can even pre-order food and drinks, so it can all be picked up in a virtually contactless way. The cinema knows who has been in the premises, where they have sat, who they have been near, and spaces can be left between groups or individuals in the cinema itself.

Of course the activity of watching a film does not require movement, unlike a restaurant or a bar or other activities—people are basically sitting still. Cinemas are significant economic drivers in our communities. As I say, 5000 people across Victoria are employed in cinemas. And of course they serve an important purpose in mental health for people and in social interaction for people. Many seniors in particular like the regularity of going to the movies.

It does not seem to make sense that cinemas have been precluded from opening when other activities that to a layperson would appear to be higher risk have opened. I understand this is being examined by the Minister for Creative Industries, and perhaps that is a reason why cinemas have not yet been opened, because the other activities that minister has responsibility for can be higher risk. The action I seek is that the minister urgently review and engage with the chief health officer to work with the industry to see our cinemas open in a COVID-safe way as soon as possible.

Horseracing

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (18:21): The Melbourne Cup is only days away, and the Farm Transparency Project has brought damning revelations of racehorse slaughter to my attention. Broombee Stud, owned by billionaire Gerry Harvey, sent a number of racehorses to Highland Petfood in Guyra, a clear contravention of New South Wales racing rule LR 114. Tamac Stud Farm has done the same, with two years of records showing he sent 89 horses for slaughter. Murrulla Stud, Sefton Park Thoroughbreds, Ambergate Stud, Binnia Performance Horses and Ezy Care Foster Mares all sent horses to the Kankool knackery—again in direct breach of racing rules. The thoroughbreds who could be identified at Kankool were Bahrain; Sunday Poet; Tycoon Mar; Lechery; Denman Dane; Domally Force; Anguilla; Madame Frost; Pending Decision; unnamed, born 2005; unnamed, born 2014; unnamed, born 2018. As well as thoroughbreds, Kankool slaughters standardbred horses that have been used for harness racing—their slaughter also prohibited by harness racing New South Wales—stock horses who have been used for rodeos and other competitive events, miniature horses and ponies, and any horse in between; along with sheep and lambs, cattle and calves, and pigs and goats.

There is a clear culture of disregard for animals at Kankool. Sheep were found on occasion to not even be stunned before slaughter, having their throats cut while fully conscious. Cattle were frequently left writhing on the ground for minutes after being shot, sometimes with clear displays of partial consciousness. Many horses and cows were shot several times, some shot again after a knife to the throat showed they were still sensitive to pain. One large pig was shot 10 times over 3½ minutes before they died screaming in pain while blood poured down their terrified face. In the footage one worker is seen posing for a photo with a steer who has been shot but is still partially conscious, later lifting and lowering the severed head, joking, ‘Who needs the gym?’.

I note that Peter V’landys promised to stamp this out last year following the ABC’s 7.30 report, yet here we still are. They have been given too many chances. They say they love their horses, yet they give them a bullet. While this is an interstate investigation, it is no different here in Victoria. If you support horseracing this spring carnival, you are also supporting the wholesale slaughter of these majestic animals, who deserve so much better. The action I seek is for the minister to stop subsidising this horse-killing industry.

The PRESIDENT: The problem is with the time. No-one is looking at the time. I will not allow this again. I warned you this morning, I warned you yesterday and I warn you again: please check the time or state your action first.

COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (18:25): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Health. It relates to the hotel quarantine bungle and the infection control measures for bloodborne viruses such as hep C, hep B and HIV that were made known to the public just a few weeks ago after 243 returned travellers were exposed or potentially exposed to these deadly viruses after the lack of infection control with a blood glucose monitoring machine. Now, it was not the lancet that was re-used, but it was the device that was not properly cleaned, and there were very serious concerns about the number of people that potentially could have been exposed to these deadly bloodborne viruses.

It just seems extraordinary that we have got this ongoing saga with this hotel quarantine bungle. I do not know if the inquiry is looking at these issues. I wish it was, because the investigation is now with Safer Care Victoria. But for those poor 243 travellers who are getting phone calls from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to say, ‘Oh, and by the way, we think you may have been exposed or you could have been exposed to a bloodborne virus like hep B, hep C or HIV’—very deadly viruses that will kill you or could kill you or cause ongoing medical conditions that are very detrimental to your health—I just think it is extraordinary that it was allowed to occur.

The medical company that oversaw the hotel quarantine program was Medi7 which is owned by the Pinskier family, who are well known to the Labor Party and close donors, including a former vice-president of the Labor Party. So I would like to understand exactly how they were involved and what their oversight in the medical care and treatment of those returned travellers was. It is a pity that the hotel quarantine inquiry was not having a look at those issues too, because I think there is more to come of that, and that is one of the reasons why I think we need a royal commission.

But, nevertheless, just to get back to those poor 243 travellers, I do not know if they are all Victorians or whether they are from interstate—maybe there were some internationals just visiting. I do not know who they are, but I would like to know what the follow-up was from that, and I expect that the entire Victorian community wants to understand exactly how that breach of infection control occurred with potentially very serious consequences. There must have been alarming stress for those poor returned travellers to have that hanging over their heads after getting a phone call from DHHS saying, ‘We need to test you for what may be a deadly virus’. The action I seek from the minister is to provide that report from Safer Care Victoria as soon as possible.

Family violence

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (18:28): I rise to give my adjournment matter. I initially thought it was for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, but I believe it could be for the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence. It was recently reported in the Australian that a specialist Victoria Police unit which was launched to support victims and to catch family violence perpetrators during the pandemic has recorded nearly 7000 offences while charging more than 1550 alleged perpetrators. Published data shows that as of 11 October Operation Ribbon recorded 6983 family violence offences, including breaches of intervention orders and assaults, since it launched in April. This represents an increase of 2547 offences since the figures were last recorded in mid-August by the state government. Additionally Victoria Police has charged 888 people who have been remanded over family violence-related crimes, while an extra 700 offenders have been arrested before being bailed or released to appear before a court at a later date.

Understandably, with Victorians going through an unprecedented lockdown, there are concerns for the wellbeing of victims trapped in their homes with perpetrators. We already know that during Victoria’s first lockdown reporting rates of domestic violence dipped before rising sharply when restrictions eased. The decrease was reportedly attributed to victims having less opportunity to report violence during the lockdown rather than a reduction in offending. Given that we know rates of domestic and family violence ballooned during lockdown and reporting rates declined, the action that I seek is for the state government to consider embarking upon a family violence reporting campaign that urges those who have suffered during this lockdown to seek assistance.

Lake Nagambie foreshore

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (18:29): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Regional Development, and it concerns plans by the Shire of Strathbogie to construct a foreshore walk connecting the Nagambie Lakes Regatta Centre and the township of Nagambie. The action that I seek is for the minister to provide a commitment to funding of $3 million to construct a foreshore boardwalk connecting the Nagambie Lakes Regatta Centre and the town’s commercial centre to encourage greater visitor access and help strengthen Nagambie’s visitor economy.

The beautiful township of Nagambie is a key town within the Shire of Strathbogie, with a population of just under 2000 people. It is a popular retirement destination for older Melbourne residents seeking a tree change, with a median age of only 50 years old. Tourism is the main economic driver of growth for Nagambie, receiving approximately 150 000 visitors to the town each year, representing more than 50 per cent of all visitors to Strathbogie shire per annum. The town is primarily a domestic visitor destination, driven by day trips, followed by domestic overnight visitors, and the visitor market generates over $33 million in expenditure annually to the local economy. The growth of Nagambie continues, with an estimated $100 million in private investment at various stages of planning and development currently scheduled in and around the town. This includes residential developments, redevelopments of accommodation and tourist attractions, and improved retail offerings.

Nagambie’s most prized natural asset is the historic Lake Nagambie, which sits at the heart of the town and is the source of great joy and entertainment for generations of both residents and visitors. The development of the Nagambie Lakes Regatta Centre and the upgrade of the adjacent Nagambie Lakes Leisure Park has only enhanced the lake’s reputation as an iconic tourist attraction and vital economic asset for both the town and the Strathbogie shire. The regatta centre hosts many rowing and other events, resulting in thousands of visitors to the area each year, and there is currently no pedestrian connectivity from the centre to the Nagambie township. Strathbogie shire believes that this is hampering achieving maximum visitor spend in the town and has plans to construct a foreshore walk as part of their Lake Nagambie infrastructure development program. The foreshore walk will be approximately 2.4 kilometres long, comprising around 1400 metres of new pathway and 230 metres of new boardwalk. The project provides continuous access for pedestrians and cyclists along the southern edge of the lake, immediately promoting better health and fitness for both residents and visitors as well as providing an economic boon for local businesses. The cost of the project is valued at $3.7 million, with contributions already committed from the federal government, Strathbogie shire and local stakeholders.

Housing affordability

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:32): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Planning in the other place, and the action that I seek is for the state government to enforce planning controls that mandate affordable housing provisions to ensure some of our most vulnerable community members have access to secure housing. Increased investment in affordable housing and the introduction of controls and planning mechanisms that mandate the delivery of affordable housing by developers through the Victorian planning scheme is needed.

Identified as a major issue in the Hobsons Bay 2030 Community Vision, housing affordability has decreased due to gentrification, and access to affordable housing in Hobsons Bay is limited. Housing prices in Hobsons Bay have been steadily increasing over the last decade. In 2015 the median price was $670 000, compared to $600 000 for metropolitan Melbourne. Just 41 affordable rental properties were available in March 2015. This equates to just 6 per cent of total rentals, simply not enough for those on low incomes, and a sharp drop since 2005 when there were 229, or 45 per cent.

Council welcomed the state government’s announcement on the weekend about their intention to offer high-rise public housing tenants private rental properties in order to keep them safe through this pandemic. This would serve to protect some of Victoria’s most vulnerable community members right now, but we urgently need further measures put in place to put vulnerable community members in a better position with more housing opportunities, and with security beyond the pandemic and the COVID normal.

COVID-19

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:35): My adjournment matter concerns the Queenscliff–Sorrento ferry service in my electorate and is addressed to the Premier. Operated by Searoad Ferries, the service carries around 1 million passengers each year and is Australia’s most used car and passenger ferry. For so many great Victorian regional businesses the impact of COVID restrictions has been appalling. Since March passenger numbers have dropped to just 10 per cent of their normal level. Despite this huge drop in revenue and the increased operational difficulty of complying with the required public health measures, the ferry has continued to operate. I pay tribute to the company for making this decision and to the staff who continue to provide this essential service to the Mornington Peninsula and the Bellarine despite these difficulties and despite frequent and arbitrary policy changes often coming without notice or consultation.

At every stage these changes have required more time, effort and investment. Never have they allowed increased revenue. The definition of the Peninsula as metropolitan Melbourne and its now absurd separation from the Bellarine as regional Victoria has made their job even harder. Chief executive Matt McDonald has written to the Premier to plead that he lift the catastrophic restrictions now. He writes:

Our organisation, our staff and our communities have held our breath through the many lockdowns … We have carried the heavy burden for months through this crisis and have held on to glim hopes of respite and relief, however I am unsure how much more we can carry …

Not only due to the financial abyss … but also … the mental health of our staff and our communities … now we are fearing the end. Just because we held our breath for 1 minute does not mean that they we can hold it for 2, 3 or 4 minutes. At some point the only thing that will ensure survival is not just the hope for air, but breath itself.

For many regional businesses the difference between the practical reduction of risk and the total elimination of risk is not just academic; it is the difference between continued trading and safeguarded jobs, and bankruptcy and redundancies. As Matt notes:

If Government took this risk elimination strategy and applied it to other sectors we could reduce the road toll to zero by driving at 3km/hr, or if we incarcerated the entire population we could have no crime on our streets.

It is incredibly sad that in the face of the Premier’s approach and without the assistance afforded by the state government to other essential public transport and infrastructure providers, the Queenscliff ferry has had to make redundancies. I feel for those affected, for the company and for the communities. I ask the Premier to remove the ring of steel and open up now, immediately, without delay, before it is too late.

COVID-19

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (18:38): My adjournment item is for the attention of the Attorney-General. As you would be aware, people who do not wear masks are not required to give details about their medical reasons for not wearing a mask when asked by police. Our right to privacy is enshrined in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that is how it should be. On the other hand, people who have been honest with police about not having medical reasons have been fined $200. This amounts to an honesty tax and is one that impacts disproportionately on poor people.

Victorians who are forced to pay these fines will never want to be honest with the police again. The pandemic has been a traumatic experience for many Victorians, who may have lost their jobs and lived under effective house arrest for months. Meanwhile there are a number of class actions against the government that, on a layperson’s reading of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, have a great chance of succeeding, and this would cost taxpayers millions. It is now time for government to regain the trust of the public and time for healing from the harms caused by the lockdown. My request for action from the Attorney-General is to waive the fines handed out to people for not wearing masks.

Rothwell housing development, Tarneit

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (18:39): I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. It concerns an email that I received from Preet Singh, who hopefully will be representing a good number of people down in Werribee if he wins a spot on the council. That is currently being counted at a very slow pace, I have to say. He says:

I am writing on behalf of Rothwell estate Tarneit residents who we have been deprived of basic facilities such as a park for over four years. Several promises have been made and there has been no real progress.

Residents have no open space to enjoy family time or even to go for a walk.

We are not asking for any favours but only what residents were promised. As a rate payer residents are not happy and this email is to register their dissatisfaction.

Mr Singh also included a number of photos which show just how appalling the conditions of some of the areas in the Rothwell estate are, and I have to say it is quite disgusting. The council has a fair bit to answer for in this regard.

I recall going down to Tarneit, it would be four years ago, with a former Leader of the Opposition to see the community centre down there that had been completely destroyed. It seems that it has gone downhill from there. This is just totally unsatisfactory. Unfortunately it is typical of the way the Labor Party treats its own. This is just what we have come to expect from Labor councils and the way they treat people who loyally vote for them year in and year out. Maybe they will wake up one day. I do not know.

What I am asking the minister to do is to ensure that this situation is rectified. As I say, this has been going on now for some years. It is far from good enough; it is totally unsatisfactory. Nobody should be forced to live in an area with these conditions. The council has a responsibility. The Wyndham council has made certain commitments, has made certain promises, but has not carried those through. Now, given that I have made numerous comments about the Wyndham council over a number of years now—and they do not seem to take much notice of anything that anybody says—I think it is important that the minister makes a phone call or perhaps sends somebody down to visit Wyndham council to ensure that they do get on with the job of looking after the residents and the ratepayers of Wyndham and giving them the fair go that they most surely deserve.

Bandiana Primary School

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:42): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education. It was good news to hear that the Victorian Department of Education and Training and the Department of Defence were able to arrive at a deal to extend the lease for Bandiana Primary School until the year 2025, giving this community of 300 students some certainty for the next few years. However, we know that we will be back in this position, renegotiating with Defence, in five years time. Defence has earmarked the current site of the school for other purposes, so we need a long-term plan for this school community. Now is the perfect time to investigate the option of securing the surplus land located on the corner of Whites Road and Murray Valley Highway currently owned by Defence Australia. This land is soon to be sold off by Defence, and it is a perfect opportunity to give the Bandiana Primary School community the long-term security they deserve.

The Bandiana-Killara-Bonegilla growth corridor is one of Wodonga’s fastest growing and developing areas, with 1500 residents currently living in Killara and an estimated 6000 residents once the Riverside estate is completed. This location is the ideal spot for the education department to build a new primary–12 campus incorporating the joining of the Bandiana Primary School and the Wodonga Middle Years College Huon campus, which is in desperate need of upgraded facilities. The site is close to the existing Bandiana Primary School and is in the growth corridor.

We know the state government flagged building a new school in Leneva two years ago and that no site has yet been purchased. I call on the education minister to look at the north Bandiana surplus land for this new school site. It will be a far better location for our growing community. If the education department acts on this issue now, we will have time for the planning, designing and building of a new campus to be ready for when the lease on the Bandiana Primary School runs out in 2025. The building of a new primary–12 campus will not only solve the issues for Bandiana Primary School but could also bring a solution to the ongoing problems for the Wodonga Middle Years College Huon campus. After talking to the principal, Vern Hilditch, in November last year we brought it to the attention of the education minister that the Huon middle years campus suffers from massive problems due to ageing infrastructure and a lack of well-overdue maintenance. It is time for a new campus. The action I seek is for the education minister to approach the Australian Department of Defence to negotiate the sale of the surplus land and ensure we have a new primary–12 campus built by the time the Bandiana Primary School lease runs out in 2025.

V/Line

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (18:44): My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the Minister for Public Transport in the other place, and it concerns the V/Line board. People will have heard the stunning, bombshell evidence that has come out in the last three days at the IBAC hearings about the siphoning off of public money, the corrupt behaviour, the crooked nest of corrupt individuals at V/Line and at part of MTM, Metro Trains Melbourne, clearly involving very senior people. The December 2017 Lansdowne report by IBAC directly pointed to this kind of corrupt behaviour, and it is clear that not only did Minister Allan fail to act and put in place proper checks but nor did the Department of Transport or indeed its predecessor. So there is a real set of questions about why the Department of Transport has not got proper checks and balances in place and why it has not been able to prevent public money, taxpayers money, being siphoned off corruptly into the pockets of people who should not have been taking that money, including the CEO of V/Line, Mr Pinder. Importantly, the board also had a role and it has failed—Gabrielle Bell; Rachel Thomson; Kevin McLaine; Liz Roadley; Tom Sargant; and previously Jeroen Weimar, now gone on to contact tracing, but who failed to run the trains on time when he was at PTV. He held a conflicted position as head of PTV and also a direct conflict when he was board chair at V/Line. I pointed that out at the time. It was clearly absolutely outrageous that he was in that position. But I say all of these board members have got to go.

Gabrielle Bell claims she specialised in corporate advisory, including corporate governance, mergers and acquisitions. She is an Australian Institute of Company Directors graduate. Rachel Thomson is currently non-executive director of Central Highlands Water—I would say they have got to look at this very closely—with experience in corporate governance processes and risk management of corporations in Australia and the US, and a graduate also of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Now, you have got to say these people have failed to prevent the taking of public money, the stealing of public money, despite the clear wake-up call that occurred. Kevin McLaine has financial officer, managing director and commercial lending business experience. Liz Roadley is a board member of Yarra Valley Water and the Victorian Assisted Reproduction Technology Authority and the chair of the Utilities Infrastructure Reference Panel. Again, how does this operate? How can somebody in that position not be held accountable? Tom Sargant is a company director and has done the Australian Institute of Company Directors course. I say the board has to go. All of them have to go. The Minister for Public Transport should sack them. (Time expired)

Dalton Road traffic management

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:48): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it concerns two intersections on Dalton Road in Thomastown and Epping. This year my office circulated a petition against those ridiculous raised intersections on the Childs Road upgrade. I am very grateful to all the residents who signed that petition. The raised intersections lack logic and substantial evidence and have yet to prove their value. They should be ruled out as part of the Epping Road and Childs Road upgrade. Those same residents have again expressed their frustration at the raised intersections and the traffic congestion at the intersections of Dalton Road and The Boulevard and Dalton Road and Childs Road. Every morning residents experience choked roads and frustration as the traffic is backed up. Residents have told me even already that as they try to get their kids back to school the traffic is a nightmare and it is difficult to get their kids to school on time. The action I seek from the minister, by way of directing the Department of Transport, is to investigate the light sequencing at the intersection of Dalton Road and The Boulevard in Thomastown and Dalton Road and Childs Road in Epping so my residents can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families.

East Gippsland family services

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:49): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, the Honourable Luke Donnellan, in the other place. It relates to East Gippsland, a beautiful region that has undergone severe trauma in the last, well, number of years, starting with significant drought impacting on families through to the East Gippsland bushfires and that significant fire event over the 2019–2020 summer that saw devastation and really again stressed families, and again now to COVID.

A fantastic group has been working in this region, and it is the Save the Children Australia organisation. During the fires and immediately after them Save the Children worked with 420 children and around 70 parents right across that East Gippsland region and all the amazing towns there. Through their support they have established an East Gippsland children’s wellbeing initiative, and central to that is an initiative called the children with additional needs working group. Now, that was established during these last few months, and it is really focusing on how we best support our vulnerable children and the families that need to care for them with their additional needs. They actually conducted a fairly fulsome survey, and some of the results from that survey are worth putting on the record for the minister to hear. They found that 81 per cent of families are not connected to information or support services they require for themselves or their child who has additional needs, so they are not connected with the information; 66 per cent of those surveyed require fortnightly assistance of various forms; but importantly, too, 69 per cent of those surveyed said that their access to the national disability insurance scheme was poor, moderately poor or average. This report card has certainly a way to go for improvement.

One of the key factors that they have identified is that parents of children with additional needs—it is often with those high-functioning autism needs, but not solely—really struggle to make connections to the services, whether it be at that very early age, and we know early intervention is key for these children and families for success, or whether it is down the line during primary and secondary school. So what this group is asking for—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Ms BATH: Thank you, President. In the scheme of things it is chickenfeed, but it could make such a difference to these families and their children. They are asking for funding of $350 000 over three years for a community connection and advocacy coordinator. I know the minister has been emailed by the current facilitator, whose name is Rachel Bell. I know she is keen to put forward a proposal for the minister. So the action I seek from the minister is for him to read this proposal and work with this advocacy group in order to say yes to that funding, provide that funding and really ensure that children are better supplied with support services, connection and that real improvement in the lives of their families.

Responses

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:52): There were 13 adjournment matters raised this evening: Mr O’Donohue to the Minister for Creative Industries, Mr Meddick to the Minister for Racing, Ms Crozier to the Minister for Health, Mr Grimley to the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Ms Lovell to the Minister for Regional Development, Dr Cumming to the Minister for Planning, Mrs McArthur to the Premier, Mr Limbrick to the Attorney-General, Mr Finn to the Minister for Local Government, Mr Quilty to the Minister for Education, Mr Davis to the Minister for Public Transport, Mr Ondarchie to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and Ms Bath to the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers. Those matters will be referred to those ministers.

In addition, I have written responses to adjournment debate matters raised by Ms Bath on 1 September and Mrs McArthur on 14 October.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:53:573:): President, I draw your attention to the standing orders relating to the timely response to adjournment matters, and I ask the minister for an explanation as to why an adjournment that I asked of the Minister for Mental Health on 4 August, some 86 days ago, regarding the medically supervised injecting room in Melbourne has not been responded to.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (18:54:204:): I was advised that that had been answered.

The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 6.54 pm.

Written adjournment responses

Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.

Thursday, 29 October 2020

Timber industry

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (1 September 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

I thank the member for her interest in Victoria’s timber industry.

Firstly, I would like to address misinformation regarding plantation establishment at a number of crown land sites in the Latrobe Valley (including Derhams Lane):

• Land that lay uncultivated for an extended period was held by the previous tenant until 2019.

• In 2019 the former tenant relinquished its lease thus handing control of the land back to the state.

• The previous tenant was not exited from the land, but rather made a commercial decision to return the land back to the state rather than renew their licence.

• Upon receipt of the land from the previous licensee, preparation and planting were immediately prioritised by VicForests on my request.

• While it is acknowledged that these plantations are being planted on land that was previously under plantation, these sites would not have had plantations on them had the Government not decided to invest in them.

• Crown land that has been made available for plantation forestry should be used for this purpose, and it is important that crown land estates that have been used for plantation forestry are replanted.

I can confirm that all of the 250 hectares of plantation established by VicForests this winter is Bluegum (species E. globulus) which is a plantation hardwood species grown predominantly for pulplog and as feedstock to paper and packaging manufacturing. These crown land plantings are a tangible result of our commitment to addressing plantation estate decline and are only one part of our broader Victorian Forestry Plan, and intent for Victoria’s plantation industry.

The Victorian Forestry Plan is a long­term plan that sets a new path for our important timber industry in Victoria. It will position Victoria’s timber industry as a leader and innovator in the sector as it transitions away from native forest harvesting.

Victoria has the largest plantation estate in Australia and the highest log output of any state in this country. But there is a lot more we can do with this important sector to grow its economic value and level of domestic processing in the state.

The Victorian Government has committed $110 million towards new plantation development in the region. The purpose of this program is to establish long­term radiata pine in the Gippsland region to grow both the scale and competitiveness of the region for the long­term.

There is a need to establish short rotation hardwood plantations as well and this has been the focus of VicForests’ recent crown land plantings in the Latrobe Valley over the last 2 years.

This program will secure jobs by securing the future of Opal Australian Paper’s operations in the Latrobe Valley, the largest private­sector employer in the region. It will support the company’s shift towards packaging paper, a growth market for the future and one that we support.

In the long­term our Victorian Forestry Plan will provide the scale to enable new investment in state-of-the-art wood processing and manufacturing, and make new products for growing markets, such as new engineered wood products. This is a growth market for the future, and one that we will turn into jobs growth and future prosperity for regional communities.

VicForests is developing a $10 million program that will investigate the use of longer­term hardwood species in farm forestry both in Gippsland and other parts of Victoria.

Clearly the new trees we plant now will not be ready for harvest by 2024 or 2030. That is why we are investing $120 million under the Victorian Forestry Plan to support communities, businesses and workers that are affected to transition to new business and employment opportunities that come from economic diversification.

We are supporting existing native forestry businesses to take advantage of new opportunities to process existing plantations, new manufacturing opportunities or other new business opportunities they can identify. We will work hard with those communities and those businesses who want to work with us.

We are doing this through our Forestry Business Transition Vouchers, the soon to be released Timber Innovation Grants and the Regional Growth Fund.

We know this will be tough for many businesses and some may not be able to transition to something new. In this case we will provide a safety net for workers and businesses.

Supply from native forests has been under ongoing decline over recent decades.

Rather than do nothing, we are providing the investment and the time needed to support communities and businesses undertake the steady changes they need to make to secure a strong future for decades to come.

This is the responsible thing to do. We are leading and supporting regional Victorians to secure their future rather than burying our heads in the sand or looking backwards for the answers and hoping for the best.

For communities that may see job losses from the native forestry industry, we are providing support through Local Development Strategies and the Regional Growth Fund. This will see investment in new businesses and industries, and new jobs for local people.

The Victorian Forestry Plan provides time to plan for a long­term, efficient and modern plantation­based industry in Victoria. One that is based on maximising the value from this fantastic resource and one that will be placed to meet the needs of future generations.

Barwon Heads Road duplication

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14 October 2020)

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, the Hon Jacinta Allan MP.