Legislative Council Hansard - Friday 30 October 2020

Friday, 30 October 2020

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

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

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

World Teachers Day

The PRESIDENT (09:35): Today is World Teachers Day. On behalf of the Victorian Parliament I wish to congratulate and thank Victoria’s teachers for all that you do in educating students across our state, caring for their wellbeing and supporting them to achieve their goals. Thank you.

Papers

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes—

Darebin Planning Scheme—Amendments C193 and C194.

Frankston Planning Scheme—Amendment C142.

Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendments C373 and C399.

Moonee Valley Planning Scheme—Amendment C216.

Surf Coast Planning Scheme—Amendment C125.

A Statutory Rule under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998—No. 119.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Notices given.

Notices of intention to make statements

Notice given.

Adjournment

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (09:39): I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 10 November 2020, at a time to be determined by the President, or an earlier or later day and hour to be fixed by the President in the week commencing Monday, 9 November 2020, and the President will notify members of any changes to the next sitting date.

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I note the Leader of the Government has moved a different sitting date than what is on the schedule, and she may have good reason for that. Perhaps she might like to explain to the chamber what is happening there—I understand that the lower house has said they are sitting, but we are not immediately shackled to them—and what they are intending to do on that day. Is it budget day? Is it another day? What is actually happening with the surprise of the 10th?

Ms SYMES: I appreciate that from the Leader of the Opposition. They are good questions to ask. I can confirm that 10 November will not be budget day, but we are bringing the sitting week forward by a week. I will seek to provide further particulars of the remaining calendar for this year today.

Mr Davis: Further on the point of order, it is bringing forward the sitting week rather than an additional sitting week. Is that what you are intending?

Ms SYMES: It is bringing it forward at this point in time, but the remaining sitting days of this year I will confirm later today. As agreed in this house, it certainly will not have fewer sitting days than the calendar proposed and it will potentially have more.

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, President, my question to the Leader of the Government is around that week. Are we proposing to be sitting for a whole week, or are we proposing it will be just one day, two days, three days or till the Friday?

Ms SYMES: We are proposing a full sitting week on the 10th.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:42): I want to put on record first the unusual way that this has occurred. We are happy to work with the government and other parties in this place to make sure the place works well. One concern I do have and I want to register is that the 11th is Remembrance Day. That would also be I think the Wednesday, which would be a non-government business day, so there may be a material effect on the opportunities for non-government members to speak. Others may have a different view—we have not had the opportunity to discuss this, obviously, in the short time, the few minutes, that are available since we have discovered this—but I would prefer not to sit on the morning of the 11th, Remembrance Day. It is an important day to mark, and many city members in particular would attend services. I understand that COVID is there and there are some genuine issues about that.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:43): Just speaking to the motion and just feeding off what the Leader of the Opposition has just said in this house, as a former reservist, I am more than happy to sit here in this place on 11 November, but I would hope, if we do sit here on 11 November, that at 11 o’clock we would pay respect and have 1 minute of silence. Many of the defence force are working hard for this state at the moment, so I think it would be fitting if we actually sat on the 11th to pay respect to our defence force people on that day. It is great that we have actually got the Minister for Veterans here in this place. I think it is another reason why on 11 November I do not feel the need to have a day off here in Parliament. I am more than happy to sit here, as we should, for our community.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (09:44): I think it is regrettable that this situation has arisen. I think it unfortunate that the Leader of the Government has not been able to provide the house with a good reason as to why this change has occurred.

Ms Symes: You don’t want to sit?

Mr FINN: No, I am just saying that this government appears to just make things up as it goes. Everything is done by this government on the run, and this decision that the Leader of the Government has come into the house with today and dropped on us—to change the sitting date—is reflective of a government that does not have a clue what it is doing from one minute to the next. Quite frankly, I do not mind sitting—we will sit every week if you want—but for God’s sake will you people get your act together so that everybody knows what is going on? This is what people across Victoria are calling for—a bit of certainty—and you cannot even get your sitting days right. If you cannot get it right in here, what about all the people out there who are relying on you for certainty to get on with their business, to get on with their lives? That is my objection to this. I think that Victorians deserve better than a government that just makes it up on the run.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (09:46): Before I make a very serious note, I was a little bit put off by the face that appeared to be popping out of the top of Mr Finn’s pants! But I have managed to get over that.

On a serious note, I have made a number of inquiries, and I am sure Mr Atkinson has experienced it as a previous President where there is a very solemn minute’s silence on the steps of this Parliament. There is a bugler and all the traffic stops. It would be a great sign from all of us from both chambers to be standing out there at 11.00 am, and that will be facilitated.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (09:47): I just want to add to the debate because I think it is a great pity that the government has chosen to sit on Remembrance Day this year in particular. This year is the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II and will be marked on Remembrance Day the week after next. Whilst Mr Leane says that there will be a service here, many of us would prefer to be with our own communities to mark that very poignant anniversary of the end of World War II.

Ms Symes interjected.

Ms LOVELL: On a point of order, President, I believe the Leader of the Government actually just called me a hypocrite, and I am offended by that. I would ask her to withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, can you clarify?

Ms Symes: It was a general comment.

The PRESIDENT: Okay, thank you.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The comment has been withdrawn. Nothing further.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

West Gate Tunnel

Debate resumed on motion of Mr DAVIS:

That this house, pursuant to section 71(4) of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and section 23 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994, disallows, in full, the Environment Protection (Management of Tunnel Boring Machine Spoil) Regulations 2020, which were gazetted on 30 June 2020 and tabled in this house on 4 August 2020.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:49): I rise to speak on the tunnel-boring disallowance motion. There are a few issues with this motion, but firstly we have to think about the health impacts and safety. We were doing a lot of research on what are the actual health impacts of PFAS and what are the impacts in this particular situation. On the actual scientific evidence on PFAS and its evidence for links with human disease, if you look at the Australian federal government website, they had an expert health panel that said:

The Panel concluded there is mostly limited or no evidence for any link with human disease from these observed differences. Importantly, there is no current evidence that supports a large impact on a person’s health as a result of high levels of PFAS exposure. However, the Panel noted that even though the evidence for PFAS exposure and links to health effects is very weak and inconsistent, important health effects for individuals exposed to PFAS cannot be ruled out based on the current evidence.

So that would seem to indicate that there are possible health effects from PFAS and therefore some sort of precautionary approach to handling it should be taken.

The next point about this particular issue with the tunnel-boring waste is if we look at the anticipated PFAS levels in the soil, it is anticipated that the maximum amount in the soil is 0.7 micrograms per litre. That does not mean anything to most people, and it did not mean anything to me either when I first learned about it, but if you look at what the guidelines for PFAS concentrations are—recommended PFAS concentrations—for recreational water use the recommended guideline is 2 micrograms per litre. So this is more than double the concentration of what they are expecting to find in the soil. There has been talk about some of these CFA training bases and things like this where the concentrations were two or three orders of magnitude higher than what we are expecting to see in the soil in the spoil from the tunnel-boring system. So these are quite low levels but, fair enough, we need to take a precautionary approach on this.

The next point is what happens to this soil when it is dealt with. Our understanding of the way it has been dealt with in putting it in lined containment cells isolated from waterways—I actually do not see any large problems with the way that this is being managed currently. So if we got to the point where the disallowance motion went ahead, what would actually happen? What would be the consequences of that? Some of this spoil could go to existing landfills, but it is my understanding that the free capacity in these landfills is nowhere near enough to handle that sort of volume. And what would be the economic impact? This is the biggest problem for me. We are in the middle of one of the biggest economic crises in Victorian history due to the pandemic and the response to the pandemic, and effectively this would throw a spanner in the works of some of these major projects. Irrespective of whether you thought the projects were a good idea or not to begin with, they are underway right now. Lots of people are working on these projects. The idea of disrupting these projects, people being stood down—it would cost taxpayers a fortune to deal with this, I feel. So I find myself in the position where we cannot support throwing a spanner into these projects at this point in time. I just think it is irresponsible, and we cannot support the motion.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 15
Atkinson, Mr Cumming, Dr Maxwell, Ms
Bach, Dr Davis, Mr McArthur, Mrs
Barton, Mr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr
Bourman, Mr Grimley, Mr Ondarchie, Mr
Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr
Noes, 21
Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Symes, Ms
Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Tarlamis, Mr
Gepp, Mr Patten, Ms Taylor, Ms
Hayes, Mr Pulford, Ms Terpstra, Ms
Kieu, Dr Quilty, Mr Tierney, Ms
Leane, Mr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms
Limbrick, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms

Motion negatived.

Production of documents

COVID-19

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:01): I am pleased to move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the resolution of the house of 2 September 2020 requiring the production of briefs relating to the public health and other orders made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and other acts;

(b) the resolution of the house of 16 September 2020 requiring the production of documents relating to the decision to impose a COVID-19 curfew;

(2) requires, in accordance with standing order 11.01, the Leader of the Government to table in the Council:

(a) within one week of the house agreeing to this resolution, all briefs provided to or signed by the Victorian chief health officer, the deputy chief health officer or delegate and all briefs provided to or signed by the Minister for Health, relating to the public health and other orders made since 20 August 2020 under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, that relate to the decision to allow public attendance at the Cox Plate and subsequent decisions to block attendance;

(b) within two weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, all other briefs provided to or signed by the Victorian chief health officer, the deputy chief health officer or delegate and all other briefs provided to or signed by the Minister for Health made since 20 August 2020 relating to the public health and other orders made since 20 August 2020 under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008; and

(c) within 48 hours of an order being made during the period in which the state of emergency remains in operation, all briefs provided to or signed by the Victorian chief health officer, the deputy chief health officer or delegate and all briefs provided to or signed by the Minister for Health relating to the public health and other orders made from the day the house agrees to this resolution under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

To summarise for the house, this is a documents motion. It reiterates that the house has requested the documents from the government in two tranches. These have not been provided. These are a very defined class of documents. They are the briefs provided to the chief health officer and signed by the chief health officer and to the minister, so they are very clear, easily identifiable documents that are in place. As a former health minister I know these documents exist, because I have signed them myself. I have seen this type of order under this exact act. It is very clear that the chief health officer or their delegate would not sign an order without a background document that explains what they are doing and looks at the basis on which they are doing it within the Public Health and Wellbeing Act and the objectives and principles in the act which are laid out—the proportionality, the scientific basis, the accountability and the transparency that are all part of the objectives of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.

It is very much within the objectives of that act that these documents ought to be in some form public already in my view. The detailed basis and reasoning could easily have been provided by the government and in my view, consistent with the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, ought to have been provided. The fact that the government has not provided these documents I think speaks volumes about the quality of the decision-making, and I think that is concerning. The one area where we do have some information of this type is in relation to the curfew, where a legal case has seen some of these documents come into the public domain in one form or another. And it is clear that the decision-making on the matters around the Public Health and Wellbeing Act with respect to the curfew were not up to muster in the view of many public health people. The basis on which the decision was made was not up to scratch. But leaving that aside, the principle should be that these matters are more transparent.

The house is entitled to ask for these documents specifically with respect to the tranche of time since those earlier orders, and that is what this motion does. It singles out the decisions on the Cox Plate because in fact on one day two decisions were made on the Cox Plate. Early in the day they said a larger group could attend at the Cox Plate, and then later in the day they said a smaller group could attend at the Cox Plate. Now, decisions by the chief health officer or their delegates are required by law to actually have in their basis all of those matters in the objectives of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act. It is impossible to see how those two decisions can be consistent just hours apart. There must be two sets of documents relating to those decisions on that day, and we seek both of them. That is a simple point. Those decisions were made, and they affect the community. The Public Health and Wellbeing Act quite clearly seeks to have this as a transparent and accountable process, and this is consistent with those objectives. It is consistent with the Parliament’s role and our house as a house of scrutiny and a house of review to be asking for these documents and to have them in the public domain.

Finally, the last part of this seeks to bring the date of orders up to today and to seek a tabling mechanism for future orders. So when an order is made it should be tabled, and the details of the briefs should be tabled in the chamber in a short period following that. The community is entitled to know these things. What on earth is there that would prevent a minister or indeed a chief health officer wanting the details of these decisions in the public domain?

I should say there is one other case that we do have some greater detail on, and that is from an FOI that we have received. It is a heavily redacted FOI, but it does have some material around the grand prix decision and it is very clear that this decision was made very late in the piece. The basis of the decision is, in my view, incomplete, to put it kindly, in terms of the resources and material that were behind that decision.

I also think that it is important that into the future this be dealt with in a constructive way. We see a very sensible, practical way forward for the chamber here: ask for the briefs and put them in the public domain. It is consistent with the earlier motions of the chamber and it is squarely within the documents purview of the chamber under the sessional orders, and I ask for the chamber’s support for this matter.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (10:07): I rise to speak on this motion. It is a bit of a groundhog day, isn’t it, really? Another non-government business motion from Mr Davis, and it is yet another documents motion. It is not lost on me that Groundhog Day of course starred Bill Murray, and perhaps that is what Mr Davis was doing yesterday: auditioning for a new career as a comedian. We remember his attempt at humour in question time yesterday.

I think Mr Davis must be the only one in this place who does not read newspapers, who does not keep up with the news. Because if he did, he would have seen the public’s response to the way the opposition have handled themselves during this pandemic. He would have seen it.

Mr Melhem interjected.

Mr GEPP: Fifteen per cent, Mr Melhem, you are quite right—15 per cent. I mean the view of the public has been quite overwhelming in response. You know, I have got to say that I have got to give Mr Davis points. He does not give up. He does not give up, but it is the same record that gets played each and every week—each and every week—again and again and again. That bit of vinyl has got a big scratch in it. We just keep going around in the same place, and the speech is the same. The speech is always, ‘Government bad. Transparency. Openness. But you’ve got nothing to fear with this motion; it’s a matter of just laying on the table some documents. And gee, if you’re not doing it, what are you hiding? What are you hiding?’.

Mr Davis said in his contribution that the public deserves to know what is behind these decisions. I have watched my TV screen like most other Victorians, and somewhere between 10.30 and midday most days for the past three and a half to four months we have had the Premier of this state, generally with the chief health officer or, if not the chief health officer, the deputy chief health officer, stand in front of the TV cameras and tell the Victorian public the decisions that have been made on that day, if there are any new decisions, and the reasons behind them. They have put forward on every occasion the rationale, the logic behind each of those decisions. Now, you can argue with them if you want to, but to stand in this place and give the impression that there is something else going on here is just quite unbelievable. And when you think about it, it is probably the reason why they got a number 15 last week in the Ipsos poll for their positions during the pandemic.

You know, the conspiracy theories that run amok on that side of the chamber are just quite extraordinary. I do not know whether they have woken up to the fact that we are dealing with a global pandemic. This is affecting every nation in the world. Every nation in the world is touched by this, but if you listened to Mr Davis you would think that this is just contained to the state of Victoria in the country of Australia and that no-one else is affected. I think we are going to have to do a bit of a whip around and get a subscription to cable TV for Mr Davis, because if he had that cable TV subscription, he would be able to turn on the international news and he would find that across the globe countries are battling this pandemic, dealing with second waves. Europe is going through a hellish time right now. I do not think the numbers have ever been bigger in the United States. So this is not an issue, this is not a problem that is quarantined to Victoria. Rather, we are dealing with a global set of circumstances and any suggestion to the contrary, or any inference or any implication, is completely wrong.

Of course we dealt with this earlier in the week in terms of the inquiry that will be now conducted by the Legal and Social Issues Committee in relation to contact tracing, and we moved to amend the date on which that inquiry will be done and reported back to the house—and that is important. It is important because the point was made about taking very precious resources away from the task at hand. Even though the numbers were terrific this morning—I think I heard there were four new cases overnight—

Mr Melhem: Some of the cases aren’t new.

Mr GEPP: That is right, some of the cases are not new, but four cases overnight and no deaths, as I understand it. I think that mystery cases are also down to two. Is that right?

Mr Melhem interjected.

Mr GEPP: Two, Mr Melhem. Thank you.

Mr Melhem: The average is 2.6.

Mr GEPP: The average is 2.6. Nonetheless, what we are seeing around the globe is that if you do not stay at on top of this thing, if you do not dedicate your resources to the containment and management of this pandemic, then it will quickly get away from you. We have all heard the modelling numbers that have been put out by experts for many, many months now and how one mystery case can quickly multiply to exhaustive numbers and put an enormous burden on the health system, particularly here in Victoria. Indeed some of the modelling shows that if we do not keep on top of this pandemic it could crush the health system.

You only have to talk to health workers that have been involved—I am not just talking about nurses and doctors; I am talking about orderlies, I am talking about administration staff, I am talking about cleaners, I am talking about the whole gamut of allied health workers—to know, when the second wave of this pandemic was at its peak, the enormous pressure that was brought to bear on our health system and those individuals who strapped on the masks to walk into those places, the people with their PPE gear, and did a mighty job, and the stress and strain that they were placed under during that particular time.

That is why it is so important that we remember those times. Now that we seem to have been able to contain it and rein this pandemic, this horrible virus, this terrible virus, back in, it is so important while it is still out and about that we channel all of our efforts into containment, into ensuring that it is reined in, into ensuring that it does not get away from us again, because if it does, we all understand the implications of that sort of environment. It can do enormous damage to us, and that is why it is so key that we ensure, with the resources that we have, whether it be contact tracing, whether it be testing, whether it be the people working on the front line in our hospitals, that we stay on top of that for those people, not to mention the rest of the state and the economic challenges that this pandemic has presented.

But as the Premier has said time and time and time and time again in relation to the economic challenges that this thing throws up, our first response must be the public health of all Victorians. If you do not get those settings right, if you do not get those things correct, then the impacts on society are far greater than anything that we can imagine. You cannot do a job if you have got COVID-19—you cannot do it very well—and if it is spreading to other workers in the workplace, and we are all trying our very, very best to ensure against that when we are at work, as we all know. I mean, you only have to look at this chamber and the things that we have done over the past few months to try and modify our behaviours and ensure that anybody who may have contracted the virus did not share it with anybody else in this Parliament. And it has been a credit to you, President, to the Speaker in the other place and to all of the staff that you work with in this place that we have been able to function so well over the past few months, continuing to do important work for all of Victoria but at the same time maintaining those very, very strict and necessary public health arrangements in this place so that nobody here contracts this awful, awful disease.

And of course we know that the insidious nature of this virus is that you could have it and not know. You might not actually know. You can be completely asymptomatic and not have a clue at all that you are carrying the virus and indeed spreading it. That is why these things are so important in terms of the directions of the chief health officer. The chief health officer is presented with all of the data, all of the information available to him and the public health team. They then put in place a series of measures to try as far as possible to limit and rein in any spread of this virus.

For this motion to come forward to this house, where the onus—it is a bit of a flippant proposition that Mr Davis puts, ‘Oh, it shouldn’t take too much effort to gather the information—gather the detail’. He always harks back to the days when he was health minister. Gee, weren’t they the glory days of the health system in the state of Victoria? I can hear Bruce Springsteen singing in the background about glory days. You know, I could just hear that music pumping during the reign. When there is a video produced of Mr Davis’s time as the health minister in this state, that will be the background music. It will be Bruce Springsteen belting out Glory Days. I cannot wait for that top 500 hit to come out. I am sure he has got it; he just has not released it yet. I am not sure when he is going to release it. I suggest he release it online because the queues would snake all the way down Bourke Street or down to Spencer Street and probably back up Collins. It will remind me of one of the WorkChoices marches that I was involved in—and you probably were too, Mr Melhem, back in the day—that occupied the streets of Melbourne.

Any suggestion that this motion will not take away valuable resources from the task at hand is just a nonsense. The requests in this motion are onerous, they are extensive and they will take up departmental time that should be spent on important work, and that should be the important work of actually preventing the spread of this virus throughout our community rather than satisfying the political appetite of Mr Davis. I would love for those opposite to come into this chamber and tell us how many of them were involved in the strategy for putting this motion together. I suspect it was a one-man band. I suspect that there are many opposite who did not have any input into this motion.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr GEPP: And I have hit a nerve, because Mr Finn is awake. I have hit a nerve. Mr Finn is up and about, so I think I have uncovered something. I think we are down in the weeds now. We have just peeled a few back, and I think we know.

This is a shameful political tactic, and they are more interested in taking up the valuable time of the Department of Health and Human Services and the public health team in providing documentation, when they stand there every day in front of the people of the Victoria and give the numbers, give the information, give the detail, give the logic, give the rationale behind every decision—every time. And of course we hear from people who would purport to know better but in fact do not know any better. They come in here, ‘Let’s make a point because it is different from another point that’s been made. So let’s be a little bit different. Let’s take a different position, a position of opposition’. But it is a reckless approach, and it is reckless because at its core it requires departmental resources to be taken away from the very challenging task they have every single day of ensuring that this virus does not spread through our community, and to suggest that there has not been any explanation to the Victorian people is just a nonsense. I do not know how many days it has been—is it 120-something or thereabouts, Mr Melhem?

Mr Melhem interjected.

Mr GEPP: Thereabouts, Mr Melhem, thank you. Every day, at least for an hour. I do not think that any of these press conferences have gone for less than an hour. I think most of the press conferences have been going for an hour and a half, so we are probably up somewhere around 200 hours. They are not in Parliament; they are actually out there being quizzed by the media every day for an hour and a half on the latest set of numbers, the latest data, the latest intelligence, the learnings that we have from the rest of the country, the learnings that we are getting from the rest of the world, and putting out there the proposals and the directions about how best to manage this thing.

It has been well received by Victorians. I think they are very appreciative that they are getting real-time information from the experts about their decisions, why they are making them, when they are making them and what they hope to achieve. I do not think the chief health officer could have been any more transparent if he tried. I do not think he could explain it in any more detail than he has up until now. And the point that he has made again and again is that this virus does not discriminate—this virus just does not discriminate.

I heard colleagues from regional Victoria say early on, ‘Keep the place open’, and then of course when there was an outbreak in regional Victoria, the catchcry from them was, ‘Shut it down. Shut it down. Close it up. Don’t let them in. Don’t let them in.’ Of course the insidious nature of this invisible disease is that you just do not know, and you have got to put in place the systems, the processes and the decisions that best contain it.

When it comes to Mr Davis, what you can rely on is that whatever decision is taken by the chief health officer in dealing with this pandemic, if the CHO zigs, then Mr Davis wants to zag. If the CHO turns right, then Mr Davis wants to turn left—although I am not sure that he would ever do that; I think he would instead go around in a right-hand circle until he could be bumped off rather than turn left. I do not think he would ever go left if he had a choice.

The decisions that have been put in place by the chief health officer over the past few months in particular have been difficult. No-one is resiling from the fact that they have been difficult—they have had an enormous effect. Nobody in this place should think that the government and those that have been charged with making these decisions are not acutely aware of the mental health impacts, the impact on children and their schooling, the economic impact on people who have not got a livelihood or who have had their livelihoods suspended, and the emotional impact.

Ms Bath talked about—a couple of days ago—the fact that she had not seen her son, I think she said, since December last year. I think it was his birthday, she said, a day or so ago. We understand that. There is not a person on this side of the chamber who has not been experiencing exactly the same thing, but it is not about the people inside this chamber. It is not about the people inside this chamber, because the decision has been made for Victorians. We are acutely aware—we feel it, we touch it, we are a part of these communities. We live in the communities. We understand. You know, it was difficult when the CHO decided that the wearing of masks was going to be a necessary strategy in combating the spread of this virus. How difficult it was for everyone. For the first couple of weeks we were all moaning and groaning about ‘Gee, isn’t it hard to breathe in these masks?’. But we are starting to get used to it. It will never feel—

Mr Finn: No, we’re not. It’s driving me nuts.

Mr GEPP: Well, it may well. I am glad you raised that, Mr Finn, and I’m sure it does drive you nuts. Can you imagine the healthcare workers who every day do not get a choice—

Mr Finn: Like my wife?

Mr GEPP: indeed—who go into these places—

Dr Cumming interjected.

Mr GEPP: I can hear Dr Cumming chipping away, chipping away.

Dr Cumming interjected.

Mr GEPP: I am actually a regional Victorian, so I know precisely. You want to walk into this place, and you want to give us a lecture about what we experience in our communities. You seem to know it all. You have been contained by the steel ring, as it has been called for the past few months, but suddenly you are an expert on what is going on in regional Victoria. There is not much—I have heard you over the past week—that gets by you. You are pretty good.

But going back to these masks, I am very glad, Mr Finn, that you raised these, because our healthcare workers do not get a choice. They do not get a choice. It is part of—

Mr Finn: Nor do we. Nobody gets a choice anymore in Victoria.

Mr GEPP: That is right, and the price that we pay for wearing masks is public safety. That is the price. That is the price that we pay for the wearing of masks—public safety. And it is happening all around the world. Turn on your TV sets and have a look at what is going on all around the world. It is a strategy that the world has adopted to try and combat the spread of this insidious disease, and it is something that we should continue to do for as long as the public health experts tell us to do it. They tell us. We do not think a doctor or a nurse or an orderly or anybody else walking into one of the COVID-19 infectious control units has any choice. They do not have a choice. Can you imagine what would happen if they went into one of those places not wearing a mask? Can you imagine? So what I am more than happy to do is listen to the public health experts—those who have been to the university, got their degree, been trained in these things and have extensive medical and public health expertise. They come up with these strategies, and I am more than happy as a layperson to accept that advice and follow that advice—because we can already see that the wearing of masks both here and around the globe is having an enormous impact on the spread of this insidious disease.

We have asked Victorians to do an enormous amount during the past few months to stop the spread of coronavirus. No-one takes any pleasure in restricting the movements of citizens. In my communities up in Northern Victoria, Melbourne Cup weekend would be a hive of activity where people are getting away up into the river systems in northern Victoria, enjoying the warmth, enjoying the sunshine and enjoying those waterways and just the clean air in northern Victoria, and we will not have that same level of patronage this year. It will be sorely missed, but we understand that that is a price that we need to pay in order to continue to keep this disease suppressed and reined in.

We have conducted more than 3 million tests in this state, and that is amongst the highest in the world on a per capita basis. We understand the need for testing and putting measures in place to ensure that coronavirus is contained as best we possibly can. We are all hoping and wishing and wanting a vaccine as quickly as we can get it. I think the world is so anxious to get that. I know that there have been some theories that have been espoused about some of the things that might suppress coronavirus—

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr GEPP: And a tie that is on display in this place—I think there was a theory that emanated from the luminary on that tie. I will wait for the science to come out on that, and if it works—

Mr Finn: He’s still alive.

Mr GEPP: Well, yes. Perhaps he could try it for the rest of us. In closing, I am concerned about the motion before the house. I want our resources to stay focused on the containment of this disease.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:37): Last night when I was driving home, on 3AW Denis Walter’s show was on and a caller called in and he said, ‘Have you heard about the kidnapping?’. And Denis replied, ‘No’. And the caller said, ‘Don’t worry, he woke up’. Victorians have woken up and they are actually sick of this government treating them like children. Stop treating us like children. We understand how to wash our hands. We understand when it is appropriate to wear a mask. We understand how to social distance. We also understand that when we are in regional Victoria and there is nobody around it is okay to have your mask on or off. Most people understand when they need to actually put a mask on. They are not silly. They are on the internet. They are probably watching this live today.

The virtue signalling from this government to keep creating the fear has gone beyond the pale now. We have seen hospitality venues such as restaurants and bars able to reopen this week with a maximum of 20 people indoors. However, a lot remain closed, including cinemas and other entertainment venues. In New South Wales on 1 July they only had 14 new cases of COVID, and on 1 July New South Wales lifted the 50-person restriction on those venues. The number of patrons at bars, restaurants, cafes and pubs was determined by the venue’s square metreage, with 4 square metres per customer. I must say, over my years I have owned cafes, I have had bars, and for me I understand this rule. It applies to health and safety—to be able to understand that if you have 250 patrons in a venue and there is a fire, they can get out safely. It also is a requirement, and we should understand that in a COVID-safe norm with COVID-safe plans all of our workplaces should be looked upon in terms of the square metreage and the distance that they can work safely in.

With these round-number figures that this government continues to put out there—two people to a house—you are comparing someone who lives in a flat to somebody like me who has a big backyard and a sideway. No-one needs to walk through my house, and we can all socially distance safely in my backyard with a physical distance of 1.5 metres. I could probably have 10 or 20 people physically distancing in my backyard. I am very lucky, but the whole of Western Metropolitan Region area—that is why we buy in Western Metro, because we do get a big backyard. For the people who are actually in little flats and little apartments, I understand the chief health officer’s rule—just two people over. But you know what, they are able to go downstairs to actually be in a park, and they understand that. For far too long this government has actually been treating us like children. And far too long these round numbers of 10 and 20 and two have not fit what the community understands, which is that they get 1.5 metres to be physically distanced from someone to keep themselves safe. They understand handwashing; they understand hand sanitiser—and to think otherwise is absolutely belittling the Victorian public.

Stadiums seat over 40 000. We have got the MCG and we have got all of these spaces, but they remain closed. Let us have a look at cultural or sporting events—even at 25 per cent capacity. Cinemas, theatres, strip clubs and theme parks also reopened in New South Wales, and obviously New South Wales have their stadiums open—40 000. Like other indoor venues, there must be 4 square metres of space to each person, with 1.5 metres for social distancing between the seats. So, government, why aren’t we at that? In Victoria we have not had more than 14 new daily cases and the number of cases in New South Wales has remained the same over months, but we are still limiting patrons to 20 when the square metreage could be much greater.

Let us get started on regional Victoria compared to metro. Obviously there is plenty of space in regional Victoria, and regional Victorians wish to be able to carry around their masks like everyone else and to be able to put it on when they are entering a petrol station, when they are entering a supermarket and when they jump on public transport. If you think that the Victorian community does not know or understand when to put a mask on and when not to put a mask on, you are kidding me. To sit here and virtually say, ‘Oh, well, our health workers’. Absolutely, in a hospital setting of course you wear a mask; you are around sick and vulnerable people. Of course when you are around the elderly or anyone who has a medical condition or is sick and unwell, of course you put a mask on. But to think that you are going to continue with this aspect of putting masks on the whole of the community for months and months and months on end because somehow we do not understand when to put one on and take one off—really? Is that the advice that you truly trust? I want to see all of the documents that are available, because I would like to compare them to the information that is given to New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and everywhere else around Australia.

As I raised in this place just this week, I understand why our Victorian hospital system is the way it is; it is from years and years and years of working in silos. Even this week when I contacted the Royal Children’s Hospital, it was fax machines. They could not email, and the forms are absolutely archaic. When you have got every single hospital running in a different system, not interconnecting, not having that ease of emails and the like and not having that quick, quick, quick response when people need it, that is where the gaps are.

I am looking forward to the inquiry into contact tracing and I am very disappointed in this government for not supporting my motion last week in regard to complementary therapies and making sure that that was part of all our policies, especially in a pandemic. I understand the previous Minister for Health, Jenny Mikakos, was very supportive of my motion. She could see the gaps, and she supported my intent of doing something great for Victoria: to put us with the rest of the world in the way that we look at complementary therapies. There are two in three Victorians that use complementary therapies. It is a billion-dollar industry, and this government only two weeks ago did not support my motion because it would have been a select committee. ‘Oh, wait a minute. We don’t do select committees. We haven’t done a select committee since the 56th Parliament 12 years ago. Oh, we can’t do a select committee because all of our committees are so busy’.

After yesterday, we have two more committees going. Why do you not hire more people for these committees? What I understand of a select committee is that you do them in an emergency. Well, we are in a state of emergency, aren’t we? This is a pandemic. But no, the government could not support my motion on complementary therapies—it was 19-19. It was disappointing that two of my fellow crossbenchers supported this government. It would have been a quick inquiry—six months. You have a whole department of wellbeing within the Department of Health and Human Services that could have done that. Who knows what you would have found? But no, you could not do that in a pandemic, in a health crisis. I do hope that this government gets much quicker at actually responding to the needs of this community and understanding what the community is actually saying about masks, social distancing, their venues and their businesses going under, because this government is not looking at square metreage and is not using a commonsense approach to this virus.

Yes, the virus is invisible. Every virus is invisible. No, we are not going to have a cure for this virus. We might never see a cure. Yes, a vaccine might come along. Hallelujah when it does. But what do we do until then? What do we do until then? We wash our hands, we physically distance, we use hand sanitiser, we put WorkSafe plans in place for everyone to be able to operate and work. You do not treat the community like children, like kids, because they are not kid-napping, they are awake. They have had enough and they want their government to respond quickly. They do not want to see their Premier standing there for 2 hours talking in media conferences. When did the Premier have his last swab test, because he would have had five days off if he did. While I have been sitting in this place I have watched people. Yes, we have got masks on, but they are not physically distancing. They are sitting whispering in each other’s ears. Do you not get it? No, I have seen it. I have seen it in this place. Seriously, do you not get it? Keep your distance, wash your hands, put a mask on when you need to. Do not judge people who have not got masks on because of medical conditions. We can all get through this, but do not treat the Victorian community as if they are silly or stupid or they do not understand how to wash their hands.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:50): The Liberal Democrats are sceptical about the value to taxpayers of holding too many inquiries and we do not care to take part in the battle between the red and blue teams that is going on, but we believe documents about decision-making during the pandemic should be released—and the clue to the reasoning here is the word ‘public’. Documents prepared by public servants in public health departments and funded by the public belong to the public and should be made—you guessed it—public.

I could end my contribution right there. But if you cannot follow that logic, think of it this way. When you visit a doctor it is usually a two-way conversation. Doctors listen to you, discuss your options and explain their recommendations, and this is a process that generates understanding and trust. Now, imagine if, instead of this process, your doctor refused to offer you any choices, refused to explain their decision but threatened you with fines and authorised people—authorised anyone they wanted—to knock down your door and take your stuff. The Victorian government has followed this model, and we should expect better. At the heart of this seems to be a lack of trust. But the good news is: it is now time for healing, and it is not too late to start regaining the trust.

The Liberal Democrats are particularly interested in human rights assessments, but they are made in secret. Would it really hurt the government to let us know how they are made? All we know is that the government and some crossbenchers have handed the police and the PSOs these extraordinary powers to do things like search without suspicion—to enter people’s homes—and we see police drones and helicopters at the beaches monitoring people and collecting footage. But the public deserves to know why the government seems to care so much about its own privacy and so little about the privacy of Victorians. We deserve to know why the rights laid down in Victoria’s human rights charter, including the right to liberty and security, the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of movement, have been limited so severely.

If they decided to release the documents, they might be surprised at the reaction. I do not think anyone expects them to have made the right decisions every time, just as no-one expects every medicine that we are prescribed by the family doctor to work. But we would respect the decisions if public health was managed like a doctor-patient relationship and we were treated with more respect. The government has an opportunity to show it can do better next time and regain our trust. The Liberal Democrats call upon the government to release the documents and make its workings public.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:53): I rise to support the motion so ably moved by Mr Davis earlier. What this motion is basically calling for is for the Parliament to see what the Premier has based his decisions on. Now, I say ‘the Premier has based his decisions on’ because it is pretty clear that he has been going alone on this; he has not been consulting anyone. First, he cut his caucus out—he did not want to talk to them about it. Then he cut his cabinet out—he did not want to talk to them about it. And then I think, from what I understand, he pretty much cut out most of his gang of eight, his politburo—he did not want to talk to them either. So he has been calling shots all over the place now for some months, and we do not know what it is based on. We do not know if there is any medical advice, we do not know the role of the chief health officer in all this—that is under a fair bit of speculation at the moment as well, it has to be said—but it is clear that the Premier has taken his nickname of Despot Dan to extremes. He has decided that indeed he is a despot and he can do whatever he damn well likes, and that is something that the majority of people in this state have had a gutful of.

We can talk about polls—and that poll the other day was a very, very odd way of doing things, as we all know—or we can talk about the reality of what Victorians are feeling at the moment. And what they are feeling at the moment is distrust of this government. That is what they are feeling. They are looking at this government and they are saying, ‘Can we trust Daniel Andrews? Can we believe him?’, and they are saying, ‘No, we can’t. We can’t’. That is something that we must address, and this motion will go some significant way to doing so. If the Premier or the Minister for Health can come up with these documents as they should, if indeed they exist, then that will settle that for Victorians. That will settle the argument that indeed the decisions were based on health advice and not on some whim of the Premier.

I pointed out earlier today how this government is just going on a minute-by-minute basis and we do not know what it is going to do from one minute to the next. I think a classic example of that was the curfew. Victorians for the first time in our history—indeed for the first time in Australian history—had a curfew imposed on us, and we were told that we could not go out after 8 o’clock or before 5 o’clock in the morning to begin with, and then 9 o’clock. In a moment of generosity the Premier allowed us an extra hour to go about what should be our right to wander the streets. But the Premier thought better. Now, it has been exposed since that that was not on medical advice. There was no advice from the chief health officer about a curfew—none, zero, zilch. This was an idea of the Premier. There was no advice from the Chief Commissioner of Police—although the chief commissioner said it did keep crime down. I suppose it would. If everybody is at home in bed, I suppose it would. If you want to live in a Soviet-style society, I suppose it is ideal. It is sensational. If the Premier wanted to relive the glory days of perhaps Leonid Brezhnev or Khrushchev or some of those lunatics that ran the Soviet Union for so long—if he wanted to relive those years—he was doing a damn good job of it. He was doing a very good job of it because he was telling Victorians without any support from the medical fraternity, without any support from the police, that they did not have the right to walk out their front door, their back door or indeed their side window. They had no right to do that.

There is a case before the High Court of Australia at the moment where the state government has questioned basic rights that we have all taken for granted for a very long time. Now, I think that is horrific. This virus is supposed to threaten our health. It is not supposed to threaten our human rights. It is not supposed to threaten our freedom, but that is what Daniel Andrews has done. That is what he has done, and that has to stop. The people are looking at this government. They are looking at this Premier and they are saying, ‘What are you doing to us?’. I walked down the street last night through the city, and it was dead. It is dead, it is crushed, and we do not know why this has happened. This motion is asking for the evidence to back up the decision by the Premier to crush the city of Melbourne. Last night I went to a shop to buy some dinner just before 8 o’clock, and he was closing up—in Melbourne. Closing at 8 o’clock! This wonderful 24-hour city, the greatest city in the world, the most livable city in the world—well, it used to be anyway, until Daniel Andrews got hold of it. What we need is the evidence—

Ms Taylor: There is a global pandemic.

Mr FINN: Look, I do not know what members opposite or Ms Taylor are on about. We are just looking for the evidence to back up the decision-making process. That is all we are asking for. You would think we— (Time expired)

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Suburban Rail Loop

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:00): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Suburban Rail Loop is the most expensive infrastructure project in the state’s history;

(b) Infrastructure Victoria has not reported on the risks and cost-benefits of the proposed Suburban Rail Loop; and

(2) considers it prudent that the Andrews Labor government completes a full, detailed business case for the proposed Suburban Rail Loop and makes this public.

The government has a proposal for the Suburban Rail Loop. It is a proposal that has immense spending behind some of the work, $50 million behind the work, but the likely cost of this project is much greater. Senior bureaucrats have told me that the true cost is likely to be between $150 billion and $200 billion. Another senior bureaucrat has told me directly that the costings—this was late last year—were near $162 billion. That was their estimate. Either way this is a very large project. It is probably the largest project in the state’s history, and it is a project that should be properly worked up, properly scoped, and have the proper work done behind it.

Now, the Premier in recent times has become much more vacillating in terms of his commitment to a business case. He has begun to indicate that a business case might not be needed and that just a development case might occur. Well, I say a proper business case should be put in place—a proper business case that would inform the route, the location of stations, the costings of different entrances and the various arrangements that the government would put in place to scope up this project in full. It should in my view be public. We should see as much of that business case as can be made public in the public domain so that local communities, councils and indeed this Parliament can actually see closely what the government is proposing—the exact route that is proposed, the land they propose to acquire, the entrances and the connections, the linkages, to other transport arrangements.

For example, the initial location that the government was talking about for the commencement of this was Cheltenham. Increasingly the government is talking about a station underneath Southland. Now, I personally think that makes a good deal of sense. I see Mr Limbrick looking, thinking, ‘I’m going to have a lot of construction quite near my office’. But either way, these are decisions that are complex decisions, and the different options need to be weighed and canvassed in a thoughtful and intelligent way. It needs to have proper costings behind it so that we actually know what is likely. I am told that the government is focused on a heavy value capture model. I understand that it is likely that Southland will be forced to contribute to that, and I would not have objections about some commercial contribution.

I am concerned that the government might be clobbering families and households with direct additional loadings and direct additional taxes to pay for this. So one part of a business case would actually look at the funding of the project. It would look at the way that it is to be funded and managed in that way. If there are consequences to nearby households with additional levies, additional rates or additional taxes, I think people are entitled to know that. They are entitled to know precisely what the government is intending with respect to these matters.

People have asked me about particular station locations in detail, and the government cannot at this point point to where the stations might actually be. Somebody asked me where an entrance would be, and I said, ‘Well, actually nobody knows at this point, because there have not been documents released that show’. You cannot go to where the station entrance is proposed, because there are actually no detailed plans in the public domain. And it is likely in fact that the government itself does not know the answer to many of these significant questions at this point.

But the point here is the government, in opposition, was very active in saying business cases should be completed and all business cases should be in the public domain. It has become much more resistant on this. It has now proceeded on a number of projects—level crossing 1 and level crossing 2—without business cases, and there have been huge cost blowouts. This is part of the issue here: cost containment is actually an important part of these projects. The government, on all of its major projects—we debated an issue earlier today concerning the West Gate Tunnel. That is at least $2 billion over budget. It is more than a year behind time now. Part of this is because these issues were not properly scoped and dealt with at the start. These sorts of things should have been in a proper business case that actually meant the government had nailed down all of these issues that can come up in a major contract and a major construction project of that type.

In the case of the Metro Tunnel, the government has admitted virtually that it is more than $2 billion over budget, but in fact the numbers I hear are that it is closer to $4 billion over budget now. When you read the annual report from the Department of Transport, there are contingent liability notes in there that make it very clear in that report, tabled in this chamber yesterday, that in fact the government has signed an agreement which lays out principles for resolving some of the disputes, but it indicates that the cost has increased and that there are likely to be further claims. You can only read those notes and conclude there are going to be further claims on the Metro Tunnel.

My point in talking about these other projects is to say very large projects are very complex. It requires popular business casework. It requires proper scoping. It requires EES components. The government has not talked about an environment effects statement for the Suburban Rail Loop, but you would think that there are likely to be a number of environmental problems. There are likely to be issues with creeks and issues with old land that will be traversed by such a project.

All of these things need to be brought into the public light so that they can be discussed, can be dealt with and can be properly costed. We need to understand that. It is not sufficient to say, ‘Oh well, we’re all doing it behind closed doors’. That is absolutely insufficient, and I think the community expects better. They expect that taxpayers money is actually carefully used. If you squander taxpayers money because you have not scoped projects properly at the start, it means more debt for taxpayers or less options in terms of other projects that can be completed. It does matter that projects are completed in a way where the scoping is proper and the timing is proper, where the arrangements that are put in place see good cost benefit for the community and they stick to these costings and they stick to the arrangements instead of having cost blowouts as we routinely see under this government.

Now, Labor governments are never good at managing projects and they are never good at managing money. Every project blows out. Every project gets out of control. Every project is scoped inadequately at the start, and the Metro Tunnel is a classic case. You know, it is billions of dollars over budget and that is because it was not scoped properly at the start, and that is one of the key issues that the community are beginning to look at. They are saying, ‘We’re paying a lot of tax and we need to get good value for our projects’. We want more projects, but we can have even more projects if they are kept on budget and they are kept to their cost structures rather than loose arrangements allowing the cost to career out of control.

I mean, on the Level Crossing Removal Project the auditor made the very clear point that if you do not have a business case, you are likely to have problems. He said it is risky.

A member interjected.

Mr DAVIS: Well, go and read the first report from the auditor. He said it is risky if you do not have a business case in place, and I say we need that for this particular project, for the Suburban Rail Loop. We need a proper, worked-up business case and it should be in the public domain. I do not think this is too much to ask for the biggest infrastructure project in the state’s history. I do not think it is too much to say we want a proper business case and we want it transparently in the public domain. We want to actually see the options and the choices, and we want to make sure that it is scoped properly. That is all this motion is saying. It is a very straightforward motion. It draws attention to the fact that this is a very significant time.

I want to put on record our support for more infrastructure spending. We support more infrastructure spending, and we see that as part of bringing us back from this COVID challenge and COVID difficulty that we are facing. But that does not remove the need to be prudent and sensible with public money. It does not mean that you can be frivolous with public money. It does not mean that you can lose the controls and checks and balances.

We have seen lots of examples in recent times. On the Level Crossing Removal Project we know that the alliance arrangement that was used there—and the auditors actually had quite a bit to say about that—has generated more costs than perhaps would have been the case if there was a fixed-price arrangement put in place. Again, you have got to scope stuff ahead of time to be able to do that. There is a balance to be struck here, I accept. But equally there is a balance to be struck that says do the work up-front, do the proper business case, look at the options and look at the alternatives that are available on a particular project. On the level crossings there was massive theft. This came to court, and there was massive theft from that project. This is again because cost controls and proper procurement controls were not in place. We have seen this at V/Line this week—hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts siphoned off corruptly. So corruption, poor contract controls and poor procurement controls add to the costs of projects. If you contain corruption, if you keep the procurement looseness under control and if you actually have sharp control over these matters, you end up with a less costly project and better management of public money. Again, I do not think this is too much to argue for.

We are arguing that this business case should be in the public domain and that the business case should be completed. We say that Labor in opposition called for business cases to be made public and they called for proper business cases on every project. That has not been the experience with them in government. But I say that on this Suburban Rail Loop we do need a proper business case.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (11:13): I am just going to—

Mr Finn: They’ve rolled out the big guns today.

Mr MELHEM: Oh, well, you know, after your performance earlier, Mr Finn, and the lovely tie that you have got on pledging your allegiance to a foreign power and a foreign leader—I am not sure, but that could be a conflict. I think we might need to consult with Her Majesty on whether or not you should be able to sit in this house pledging your allegiance to a foreign leader. But anyway, that is democracy.

Now, I just want to touch on what Mr Davis said in making the statement, ‘We support infrastructure spending’—especially now. What did he do in the last hour or so? Mr Davis actually moved a motion to shut down one of the most important projects in this state—a $6.5 billion project called the West Gate Tunnel. And by the way, that was not the first attempt. I have lost count. I think it was about the fourth or fifth attempt this morning. He is just hell-bent to stop any investment and anything to do with major infrastructure projects. He wants to shut them down, effectively—and that is what people do not realise. Mr Limbrick made that point in his contribution—in his 4-minute contribution; he stuck to the 4 minutes—that effectively if that motion was successful, then we would be downing tools on the West Gate Tunnel Project. Thousands and thousands of people would be out of work. That would be the effect of Mr Davis’s motion. The hypocrisy of the opposition: one minute we are not investing enough and we are not doing any major projects, yet on the other hand every time a major project has been put in place they say, ‘Let’s have a revocation motion and let’s not do anything’.

Look, I am not surprised, because I recall last time you lot were in government. Before the election in 2010 you made lots of promises. And for most of those promises, or I think all of them—some of them were rail projects like the Rowville railway project, the Doncaster line and various other things—there was no business case, because you had no intention of implementing them anyway. You came into government and—zero. Then suddenly you change Premier because you are being criticised by Victorians for doing nothing, even though you inherited a very healthy budget—very healthy books, very well balanced.

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Well, Mr Davis, I understand you have got problems with the truth. What is coming out of Mr Davis’s mouth is not the truth; it is only what he thinks is the truth. I am not saying you are telling lies—not at all. It is basically, Mr Davis, that if you convince yourself, ‘What I’m saying is the truth’, then that is the truth. You think you are telling the truth, but the truth is from 1999 to 2010 we had a surplus budget every single year. That is fact. It is fact. We had a transport plan. Anyway, when you dumped—

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr MELHEM: It is called the Sir Rod Eddington plan. When you came into power you dumped your Premier, Mr—what’s his name?

Mr Erdogan: Baillieu.

Mr MELHEM: Baillieu. Nice man. And then you decided, ‘We’re going to come up with something’, and you came up with the ill-fated east–west link—no business case. I remember we debated—

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Let me finish, Mr Davis. We debated that same issue here. I wish Mr Leane was here because I remember his contribution on that motion back then. It was a six-page document, and I reckon about 70 per cent of that document was covered in pictures. There was no substance whatsoever. We went to the election and that was rejected, and we started the most massive infrastructure investment in the history of the state. We took every single major project to an election, unlike you. You took nothing to an election. We implemented—

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr MELHEM: I think you had something about rail. Was it the fast rail you dreamed up on a piece of paper? I do not think there was any business case.

Mr Davis: Rail extensions.

Mr MELHEM: I am coming to all these things. Our railway crossings—I do not know, I have lost count. How many have we done so far? Forty-something?

Ms Stitt: Forty-something, yes.

Mr MELHEM: Yes, forty-something. Mr Davis, you must like sky rail now. It must be working, because you jumped up and down about that and obviously it is okay. It is not as scary as what you were trying to make out.

Ms Stitt: I think he’s tweeting about you.

Mr MELHEM: Is he? That is good. Sky rail must be working now. It must be okay. I mean, you have convinced the world the world is going to end.

Mr Davis talked about Melbourne Metro as well. I mean, he opposed that too. You talked about doing something with another metro tunnel. We all know the current system is actually jammed in Melbourne. By 2056 I think we are estimating we will have about 9 million people living in Melbourne. We will be the size of London and New York. So therefore it is a no-brainer that we need another tunnel, another loop through Melbourne. But to plan further than that—that is not going to be enough. Having two metro tunnels in Melbourne is not going to be sufficient, so we need something with the outer circle. Melbourne is growing.

But the problem with you lot is—and I am going to give you credit for it because you have been consistent—you just simply do not like public transport, full stop. If you had your way, maybe you would have us back on donkeys and horses. Even with roads, selectively you like roads, but you have never liked public transport. You have never liked it. Going back to the promises you made to win the election in 2010, you were going to do all these rail projects, and when you got into government you forgot all about them.

One of the main features of this proposed project is fast rail to the airport or a rail connection to the airport. I believe your counterparts in Canberra are supportive of that. I think you have probably been dragged into it and now you are supportive of that. I think you are okay with that now.

Mr Finn: You were the ones who scrapped it when you were elected.

Mr MELHEM: Was it?

Mr Finn: It was our plan.

Mr MELHEM: Was it? I’m glad. I’m glad, Mr Finn, that you’re now on board. You’re happy with that. Let me explain something to you.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Mr Finn, that Melbourne Airport link that you just talked about is actually part of the loop—the new loop we are proposing. So if you are supporting that part, you should support the rest of the loop. We are waiting for your fearless leader, Mr Morrison, to come to the party. Hopefully he is just matching up diaries and coming up with some money—when he stops attacking the CEO of Australia Post under parliamentary privilege. Fair dinkum, that is an act of bastardry as far as I am concerned, as far as human rights and as far as workers rights are concerned—using parliamentary privilege to attack employees. I am actually disappointed that the board has not stood up and said, ‘Hey, we’re going to manage it’. Now, if the board decides to discipline and sack the CEO, that is a matter for the board, but it is not playing politics—

Mr Finn: On a point of order, Acting President, I readily accept that Mr Melhem as lead speaker for the opposition has a fair width of room to move, but at this point in time he is over near the Solomon Islands, and I would ask you most respectfully to bring him back to the subject of the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Thank you, Mr Finn. I might point out that they are the government.

Mr Finn: Well, they’re our opposition.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): This is true. Mr Melhem, if you could travel back from the Solomon Islands to Melbourne, that would be great.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr MELHEM: Let us hope they are part of the bubble, and I will try to come back. I agree with you, Mr Finn, I think I should go back to bed, but you tempted me to stray a bit. I will get back to the motion. Mr Davis failed to mention that in fact when we went to the last election I recall in August 2018 we announced to Victorians our plan for this project, so it was not a surprise. We got re-elected, and then we decided, ‘Hey, it’s a good idea. Let’s go and do that project’. We actually went to an election and we said, ‘That’s our plan for the outer rail loop’. It was no secret. Victorians looked at that and they voted us back in, in fact with a significant majority if I recall. I think from memory the opposition came up with some baby rail project. I think their idea was to do something about fast rail to Geelong. That was the only contribution.

Mr Davis then went on to say that there is no explanation, there is nothing about the business case on the one hand and then he said, ‘Look, it makes sense that the government is exploring various options’. I would like to point out to Mr Davis that if he goes to www.suburbanrailloop.vic.gov.au there is a lot of information on that website which actually explains a fair bit about this project. One thing we agree on is that it is the biggest single project in the history of the state, probably in the country. Yes, it is going to cost billions and billions of dollars, but is it important? Do we need to get that project delivered? Yes, we do. It is going to take years and years and years to actually get that project off the ground and basically have that project completed.

If we go to that website I just talked about, which talks about what the project is about, a lot of the information Mr Davis was talking about can be found there. The first point is that the $300 million is basically to start the planning and start the execution—to get things ready and look at the various parcels of the project. It is not going to be one project starting from that end to the other end; it is going to be a number of parcels. Community consultation and engagement is very important, and that is part of that.

The timetable, which is on that website—it is not a secret; Mr Davis could have looked at it very easily—involves preparing for the first stage, and that is what we are doing. We are going to actually start from two ends. If we look at the Melbourne rail link, which is in the western section from Southern Cross via Sunshine to the airport, I understand there is a debate at the moment. Do you do a tunnel between the CBD—Southern Cross—and Sunshine and then use the planned corridor which has been set aside to the airport, or do you use the existing infrastructure? This is currently being talked about and explored between us and the federal government, because it is a joint project. Then if you go back to the other side, the south-east area, which will include new underground stations at Cheltenham, Clayton, Monash, Glen Waverley, Burwood and Box Hill, obviously there are engineering assessments that will take place, and stakeholder engagement activity is underway to help determine the detailed alignment and station locations. The potential alignment for subsequent stages is indicative and subject to further analysis and technical investigation.

To do a proper business case about every parcel, you need to do all of these sorts of things. That is why $300 million was set aside to investigate all these options. There are a lot of machines being used to dig some holes to check the soil to make sure we know what the geological contents are along the proposed route. Two things will come out of that. One is the cost of how we construct. We need to know how many stations, whether they are going to be above ground, tunnels et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Also, which is very important, the environment impact statement and assessment has to be part of that. That is all part of the planning process. Now, my understanding is that as part of the costing 2021 is sort of earmarked as part of that plan to look at how the funding will be undertaken, the business case, the investment options et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It is not like suddenly the government just dreamed up that project and then we are just going to go to X company and say, ‘Okay, go and build that project for us because we like it, and then you just bill us as you go’. The opposition is trying to paint a picture that there is not going to be a business case or there is no business case to basically award the contract. There are some models actually. There are some industries or companies from time to time or individuals that go to a contractor and say, ‘Look, there are two ways we can do a construction job. It could be cost plus or a fixed cost’. Obviously the government has always been of the view that any project, anything we do, has to be a fixed cost, not a cost-plus—because the minute you have got a cost-plus basically you do not know what the end cost is. So that is part of the $300 million—to basically get that plan going, do the geological tests, do the environmental assessment and do a final design.

That is the other thing. We are actually consulting with the community. I think it is very important to have that consultation process: what route that it is going to take; how many stations, as I said earlier—and some of them might be underground and some of them might be above ground. In my electorate, in the Western Metro Region, we have been actually going through that process now for the past 12 months and looking at the options, because there are two options there: whether you do, as I said, a tunnel from Southern Cross to Sunshine and then from there to the airport or whether you use the existing infrastructure part of Melbourne Metro 2—which is actually progressing reasonably well, thank you very much. The only disappointment Mr Davis got with that is that he did not get his South Yarra station; Infrastructure Victoria and all the other experts were saying there is no need for it. That has been a really sore point for him. So that analysis will be made in conjunction with the federal government, and I am hoping either option will be announced soon so we can get on with that section. Then part of that proposal is also to connect the west, with a further connection to Werribee, part of the new rail link, and hopefully electrification to Melton, which is already being worked on. We are looking at hopefully starting that soon as well.

So it is about a whole proposition here by the Andrews Labor government. It has been a massive, massive investment and infrastructure project particularly in the rail sector, because we are finally doing something that should have been probably done over the last 50 years—I think it would be fair to say we have not invested enough. But one of the things this government should be given credit for—the Andrews Labor government—is their massive investment in rail infrastructure, whether it is removing so far the 40-plus level crossings, investing in new rail projects like this one, or the Metro Tunnel. Hopefully that will be completed ahead of schedule, and it is a massive one. We talked the other day about the Murray Basin rail as well. You lot talked about it; we are actually doing it.

So basically I think the message to Mr Davis and his colleagues is that I think it is important for you to make your mind up where you sit. I think you did say you will support the project, but to me with all the talking about it I do not think you do support the project, because your record in this place is about trying to slow down or abolish any bloody project this government is implementing. You talked about if Infrastructure Victoria will be involved in designing this project. Let me just point this out to you: we actually created Infrastructure Victoria to basically advise the government on a 30-year plan so we can have some long-term planning about infrastructure projects—so we can take the politics out of it. My invitation to you now is to do exactly the same—to take politics out of this. Infrastructure Victoria will play a very valuable role in the Suburban Rail Loop. We look forward to their advice and we do value their advice.

But also we have been up-front that the decision has been made to basically proceed with this project. We went to an election on it, and we are not going to back down on it. All the studies will be done to make sure this project is delivered in the next few years. It is going to take a while, as I said, and I am really pleased that we will have the western section or part of it done ahead of the other sections—or I am hoping that will take place. I am waiting for the Prime Minister and the Premier to make an announcement, and I hope it is imminent.

I will go back to the comments made by Mr Davis in relation to the importance of investing in infrastructure, particularly at this time. Victoria’s Big Build will be crucial in mounting our state economic recovery. It is very important because these projects will support the construction sector and the local supply chain, and it is very, very important that we do that. The Suburban Rail Loop at this point in time is expected to create at least 20 000 jobs during construction and has the potential to reshape Victoria’s economy by connecting major growth centres outside the CBD. Can we all agree on whether or not the project is needed? I think we can agree on that; I hope we can. A business case? Yes, we are all for a business case for every single project. Before a contract is awarded, before any implementation, it has to be accompanied by a business case. It is more than likely we will have a business case. I referred earlier to the Murray Basin rail project, for example. When you made the announcement you did not have a business case. It was a very dodgy proposition. You talked about the project but you never actually started it. But we are going to do the business case. We are going to start the project—

Ms Pulford: They were too busy privatising Rural Finance.

Mr MELHEM: Exactly, Ms Pulford. I did say earlier that when it comes to business cases you did them as an excuse for not delivering the projects you had committed to run, such as rail to Rowville and Doncaster. There are so many of them.

I will conclude by saying this: this project is vital to the success of this state. It is vital to make sure our 9 million people by 2056 have the options of travel by rail, by bus, by car—but hopefully more by rail—and they will be able to commute from one end of Melbourne to the other without necessarily having to go through the city. That will be important, because we need to move back to making sure our suburbs are serviced by a first-grade rail network, to making sure our suburbs are hubs like Sunshine and like Doncaster—Doncaster does not have rail, but hopefully with this project it will get one—and to making sure that we give people options, whether they are going to work or visiting family or whether they are kids going to school. It is vital; let us agree on that.

By completing Melbourne Metro 2, which hopefully will be completed in the next two years, and at the same time starting the Melbourne Airport link and starting stage 1, which covers the south-eastern suburbs as well in 2021–22, we can deliver some relief to people, particularly those living in the outer suburbs of Melbourne. Because we cannot just think about the inner city; we need to think about the people outside that area. This rail project will do exactly that, by making sure we make our citizens’ lives much easier in the outer suburbs so they will be able to move around. So instead of coming up with excuses like ‘We just want a business case’, ‘We want paperwork’—because I expect that when the project starts if we are still around here, and hopefully we are still on this side of the bench and you are on the other side of the bench, and if Mr Davis is around, I am sure one of his first motions will be a revocation motion to basically stop the project. I would not be surprised if that is the case, because he has got a very good track record.

It is interesting, though. I think maybe it is about time Mr Davis gave his comrades a bit of a go because he keeps moving motion after motion after motion. No-one else in the house does apart from Mr Davis. I am sure there are very good performers other than Mr Davis in this house, and I think they should be given a go. I am sure they would do a fine job. But dictatorship is working obviously for the other side; that is why they are on 15 per cent.

With these comments I will be obviously voting against the motion and the government will be opposing the motion—not because we do not believe in having a business case. The business case is already there. There is a time line. Go to that website, Mr Davis and your colleagues, and you will find all these time lines, including the investment options, the costing, how we are going to deal with each parcel et cetera. So let us not come here and say, ‘These guys are going in blind’, because we are not going in blind. There is a lot of work going into that. That is why the $300 million has been allocated—to make sure we do all the work—and part of that work will be the business case as we get this project off the ground. But make no mistake: this project is going ahead, with you or without you. I will leave my contribution at that.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (11:42): I rise this morning to speak to Mr Davis’s motion regarding the Suburban Rail Loop. Let me start by acknowledging Mr Melhem’s most recent contribution to the chamber. You know, Mr Melhem, I am not a fan of Rugby League per se, but I got to watch some of it the other night. I watched this team put in all their effort to move up the ground, and then they went nowhere. That is exactly what happened in the last 15 minutes. There was a whole lot of effort that went absolutely nowhere—absolutely nowhere. At one stage Mr Melhem said, ‘The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, should help out Victoria’. Mate, he has offered you $4 billion for the east–west link, and you will not take it. He has offered you ADF support to help with hotel quarantine. You would not take it. And then he turned to the matter of Australia Post. I think Mr Melhem wants a Cartier watch for his contribution. I think he wants the gift of a Cartier watch for his contribution this morning to reward him for the 15 minutes that went absolutely nowhere—absolutely nowhere. Mr Melhem, I will watch the Rugby League with more intent next time in hope that at least the people who are progressing on the field will actually get somewhere, unlike where you have taken the chamber in the last little while this morning.

Mr Melhem had a problem with having a business case. He had a real problem with having the need for a business case. I think he said something like, ‘It’s going to go ahead anyway without a business case’. It does not surprise me that in Mr Davis’s motion this morning he notes that this will be the most expensive project in the state’s history and that Infrastructure Victoria, through the Victorian government, has not reported on the risks, the costs and the benefits of this supposed and proposed Suburban Rail Loop. Mr Davis makes the point that it would be prudent, despite Mr Melhem’s objections, for the Andrews Labor government to complete a full, detailed business case on this proposal.

Let me talk about the Suburban Rail Loop for a moment. For a start, it goes on the wrong route. As it heads into the northern suburbs it cuts west and heads straight across towards the City of Moreland and stops in the Fawkner general cemetery, the Northern Memorial Park. Now, I am not quite sure how many passengers you are expecting to pick up through the Suburban Rail Loop at the Northern Memorial Park, when it would be better served heading up through La Trobe University into the major activity centre of Epping and then connecting to the airport so it picks up that entire business sector of Epping, so employees and families can use it effectively. But it does not. It goes through an open space through the Northern Memorial Park. I do not know why they decided this. And the other matter would be, in supporting my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region—and I acknowledge Ms Watt is in the chamber today; as we have seen, she is going to be another strong advocate for the northern suburbs—why wouldn’t you start it at the other end? Why wouldn’t you start at the northern end and support jobs and local jobs in the Northern Metropolitan area? It just absolutely goes the wrong way.

But I get a bit nervous when I hear people like Mr Melhem talking about government-run projects, because this government has a long detailed history of failing on major projects—a long failed history. Let me start then with some obvious failings of this government. It was reported just recently that taxpayers are going to have to fork out up to another $3 billion to cover the cost blowout of the Metro Tunnel rail project—another $3 billion of cost overruns. When it comes to the West Gate Tunnel Project, leaked cabinet documents indicate that the $6.7 billion West Gate Tunnel Project is facing a $3 billion cost blowout, and Treasury’s advice to cabinet suggests the project costs could increase even further as Transurban will make an additional claim in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic on the toll road that links the West Gate Freeway in Spotswood and CityLink in Docklands. It also includes maybe another $2 billion in cost blowouts associated with the discovery and relocation of soil contaminated with PFAS—soil that they are trying to move to Mr Finn’s electorate or to Mrs McArthur’s electorate. They will not support those local communities.

But when it comes to projects, let us just look at some of them. The proposed $5 billion for level crossing removal projects blew out by $3.3 billion. The North East Link, originally $5 billion, they said, is now $16.5 billion—an $11.5 billion cost blowout. The east–west link cost Victorians $1.3 billion in blowouts. The Victorian Heart Hospital had a $393 million blowout. In Seaford the Frankston line stabling project had a $49.3 million blowout. There are a whole range of them, including Hoddle Street with $48.6 million, the Ballarat line upgrade with $32.8 million and Yan Yean Road with $31 million. This government just has project after project that they absolutely blow out, and that is why we need a detailed business case—to make sure this government can actually use taxpayers money wisely, which they do not have a track record of. I commend this motion to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (11:48): I move:

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

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.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020. I would like to start by thanking the former Minister for Health, Ms Mikakos, for her important and fundamental work in bringing this bill before us and also acknowledging the incredible amount of work that she did not just in this portfolio but in her 20 years as a representative in this place, where her commitment to the most vulnerable and her unwavering principles as a champion for diversity were evident to all, as was her staunch advocacy for those that she represented in Northern Metropolitan Region. I have no doubt the new member who joined us in this chamber, my good friend Ms Watt, will continue that staunch advocacy in her time here, and I look forward to her more than 20 years of representation in this place as well.

And of course I also thank the new health minister, who is also doing an amazing job in the short time that he has been in this portfolio so far. He brings a great deal of experience to it, and he is continuing the work alongside the Premier and the chief health officer to navigate Victoria through this global pandemic. I would also like to acknowledge the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation branch secretary, Lisa Fitzpatrick, and assistant secretaries Paul Gilbert and Pip Carew for their ongoing and positive contribution to this bill and for all they are doing to drive change for the critical workers that they represent and the people who receive care from them.

This bill addresses the policy areas of public health and wellbeing, predominantly patient safety and the delivery of high-quality health care for all Victorians. I could not be prouder to be part of an Andrews Labor government which has distinctly proven its commitment to ensuring all Victorians have access to high-quality and safe health care while also respecting the incredible work of our nurses and midwives. This bill further builds upon the commitment by improving nursing and midwifery workforce numbers in public hospitals and ensuring our maternal and child healthcare nurses are highly resourced and skilled to deliver the best possible child, parental and family-centred practice for all the Victorian public.

I would like to add that there are a vast number of maternal and child healthcare centres in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region, and they are doing a fantastic job. I am also sure everybody in this house would join me in agreeing that all of our nurses and midwives, especially in these challenging times in Victoria, have done an excellent job looking after all of us, as have all our healthcare and frontline workers. Now, I would like to take a moment to thank each and every one of them who is on the frontline fighting this pandemic with passion, with dedication and in many cases at personal risk to themselves. Each and every day many of them are putting themselves in harm’s way to protect others, and I continue to be in awe of their selflessness and their sacrifice. And for those who have contracted the virus, my thoughts are with you and your families and loved ones, and I wish you a speedy recovery.

Returning to the bill, having established the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015 to legislate minimum nurse and midwifery staffing in public hospitals and to protect minimum workload arrangements for our dedicated nurses and midwives, the Andrews Labor government made an election promise in 2018 to protect and strengthen ratios in two stages. The first of these two stages was introduced in March 2019, when the first phase of amendments to the safe patient care act took effect. These improvements were a response to rising patient complexity and the increased public demand for healthcare services. They removed the outdated rounding methodology of most shifts, meaning that in most circumstances nurses and midwives were no longer required to carry a workload that at the time could be 50 per cent greater than the ratios set out in the safe patient care act. They also established new ratios in key clinical settings, which our nurses say have allowed them to actively provide the quality care Victorians expect and deserve and, most importantly, to safeguard patient safety.

The bill before us today delivers on stage 2 of the Andrews Labor government’s 2018 election commitment to continue the improvement of the safe patient care act and deliver further beneficial amendments for our nursing and midwifery workforce and all Victorians. It will see the complete removal of the rounding methodology across the remaining shifts and settings and the creation of consistency in staffing workload determinations throughout the safe patient care act. 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. Further to this, a supernumerary after-hours coordinator will be required in specific circumstances, acknowledging the increasing complexity associated with the coordination of mixed services in small hospitals. This will also reclassify the Warrnambool Base Hospital to better reflect and anticipate practice, hospital capability and patient complexity. All these amendments are ultimately aimed at improving nursing and midwifery staffing for the safety of patients and creating safer and more satisfying working conditions for our dedicated and hardworking nurses and midwives.

Together these amendments across stages 1 and 2 will see over 1100 new employment opportunities for nurses and midwives in the Victorian public hospital sector. With the current global health crisis in mind, there has never been a clearer example in our living memory of exactly how important that is for the capacity of our health system. We have seen an investment of $50 million in creating a Nursing and Midwifery Workforce Development Fund, which has already been attracting record numbers of applicants. This fund is creating training opportunities, including 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 midwifery graduate program 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 the 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 an enrolled nurse as soon as they graduate. The fund will also provide 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 the refresher program for 800 nurses and midwives currently registered but not practising, so they can re-enter the workforce.

The Andrews Labor government has also invested $7 billion in the health build program, which will see the $562 million 11-storey Frankston Hospital being built; $29.6 million to expand the Sunshine emergency department; $63.2 million to expand the Monash Medical Centre emergency department; $115 million for the Wonthaggi Hospital redevelopment; $135 million for the expansion of the Casey Hospital; $162.7 million to expand the Northern Hospital; and $1.5 billion for the new Footscray Hospital, which is the single largest hospital investment in the state’s history. In particular the construction of the new Frankston Hospital and a Cranbourne community hospital will be welcomed by the South Eastern Metropolitan community with not just joy but also relief.

Nurses and midwives have long campaigned for these important ratios but were denied this important legislation by the Liberals and Nationals. There was extensive consultation with key stakeholders involved in developing this legislation. The importance of these changes was highlighted in the scenes of packed galleries of hardworking nurses and midwives during the passing of stage 1 of the amendments in March 2019. Unfortunately, the last time the opposition was in government they waged industrial war on our nurses and midwives by engaging in long, drawn-out, delayed negotiations. They had no plan for staffing ratios, and Victoria knows they cannot be trusted on health. Their method of governance involves nothing but cuts, closures and privatisations. We have seen it before, and if they ever get the chance, we know that we will see it again.

This bill reflects the government’s commitment to uphold safety for both patients and the workforce in our public health system, and our government will always put the health care and safety of all Victorians front and centre of our agenda. Nurses and midwives are at the heart of our hospitals and our healthcare services, and this bill will add another step in providing better and safer health care for all Victorians and protecting the working conditions of Victorian nurses and midwives. I am very proud to be part of an Andrews Labor government that understands how important it is to invest in our local hospitals and healthcare system, one that continues to invest and deliver quality health care for all Victorians.

Finally, I, like many of my colleagues, would like to take this opportunity once more to say thank you to the astonishing nurses and midwives and all the healthcare professionals who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment through their care, compassion and capability during the COVID-19 pandemic. We owe you a great debt of gratitude, one that we can never repay, but legislation like this and other legislation that we will continue to bring forward before this place while we are in government, along with the hard work that we will continue to do to liaise with you to bring about legislation that improves the condition of workers in this area but also outcomes for patients in Victoria, will demonstrate how much we value the work that you do and how committed we are to you. To all those workers: take care and stay safe. I commend this bill to the house.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): My question is to the Leader of the Government and minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the extraordinary bombshell evidence of corruption, contract rigging, featherbedding, sprinkles, top-ups—the whole stinky, smelly scene of tendering—in the public transport sector and the critical work being undertaken by IBAC to expose these crooked practices. I also refer to the IBAC annual report tabled yesterday which revealed investigations are not being undertaken into some matters due to budget restraints, and I quote, ‘even when the allegations in the complaint or notification met the criteria of being serious or systemic’. Therefore, Minister, I ask: has the Andrews Labor government starved IBAC of funds, effectively preventing it from undertaking embarrassing investigations and covering up corrupt practices inside the Andrews Labor government?

Mr Leane interjected.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:01): I will commence my response by picking up the interjection of Mr Leane and his identification of the fact that the important work that IBAC does is in uncovering corruption. I concur with much of the commentary of Mr Davis. This is appalling, what is transpiring, and it is great that we have a body that is able to examine and unveil this and the appropriate action be taken. In relation to the budgetary provision for IBAC, I will take that on notice, but I would note that the budget for IBAC has increased year on year. I will provide a written answer to provide those further particulars as required by the standing orders.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): I thank the minister for her answer and I again draw her to the comments made by the IBAC report, which says that ‘even when the allegations in the complaint or notification met the criteria of being serious or systemic’ there are budget restraints which are stopping inquiries going ahead. I therefore ask: will you guarantee the IBAC’s budget bid will be met in full, or will you continue the cover-up?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:02): I will refer the question to the Treasurer and provide a written response in relation to the budgetary requirements of IBAC. I am not in a position to pre-empt any budget announcements pre the budget on 24 November.

Drug driving

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:03): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. On a number of occasions in this place I have asked a question or made a comment about drug driving. This would come as no shock given my former life as a police officer and also my party’s focus on the legal system and its shortcomings. On one of these occasions we were advised by the minister to look out for some dates when the state government would report back about its approach to drug driving. My question to the minister is: what are these dates we can look out for in relation to the reporting back of these newly informed approaches to drug drivers, and are we likely to see changes to training for police officers to allow more impairment testing of drug drivers?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:03): I thank Mr Grimley for his question to the minister for police, and I expect that the minister will respond to him in accordance with the standing orders.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:04): In a response I received to a question on notice, the minister indicated that in 2019 just 63 drivers were charged with impairment. In this time over 150 000 drug tests were conducted. The minister said that Victoria Police cannot disaggregate the number of persons charged with impaired driving in terms of those that received a positive test outcome at the roadside. However, the state government’s submission to the 2019 road toll inquiry states that in 2018 Victoria Police issued over 4600 infringement notices for drug-driving offences. I am aware that only a very limited number of Victoria Police highway patrol officers have the training to actually conduct an impairment test, which undermines the approach to remove dangerous drug drivers from our roads. Given the very small percentage of drivers being charged with impairment in comparison with the overall drug-driving offences, can the minister elaborate on the effectiveness of the impairment offence in making our roads safer?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:05): I thank Mr Grimley for his supplementary. That will be referred to the minister for police for an explanation.

Ministers statements: World Teachers Day

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:05): I rise to recognise and applaud the work of Victoria’s teachers as we mark today World Teachers Day 2020. In particular I would like to recognise staff in the VET, Learn Local and higher education sectors across all fields and thank teachers, trainers, educators, leaders and support staff for all of their efforts in these challenging times. This year World Teachers Day is celebrating teachers with the theme ‘Leading in crisis, reimagining the future’. What I have seen this year is teachers and trainers simply going beyond the call of duty. Staff have worked rapidly to make sure training can continue remotely and online, and they have quickly built their skills and capacity so training providers can continue their important work. Most importantly they have kept their focus on students. Teachers and trainers have made sure that students stayed engaged in trying circumstances. They have made sure to check in with students who are struggling with their studies and facing other life challenges. Teachers have shown students that, no matter what life throws up, students can have confidence in their ability to continue to learn and reach their goals. To our teachers, trainers, educators, leaders and support staff I would like to say this: we celebrate you, we are proud of you and we thank you for the work that you do day in, day out to support students to get the vital skills and knowledge that lead to jobs, careers and fulfilling lives.

V/Line

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:07): My question is to the Leader of the Government and Minister for Regional Development. Minister, given the shocking revelations of corruption, kickbacks, sprinkles, top-ups and payoffs heard this week at IBAC concerning V/Line and the failure of V/Line and the Department of Transport to learn the lessons of IBAC’s 2017 report on corruption in V/Line tendering, called Operation Lansdowne, I ask: will you insist, particularly given the significance of V/Line train and bus services to regional Victoria, that the incompetent board of V/Line is sacked immediately?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:07): Mr Davis, I do not really understand why you would direct that question to me as Minister for Regional Development. I do not have the power or the responsibility in relation to the board. I will consider your comments, but it is just not something that I have the power to do. However, of course this issue is front of mind for government. It is shocking, the revelations, and appropriate action will be taken. But in relation to the board, it is just not a matter for me.

The PRESIDENT: Mr Davis, from my understanding your question should have been directed to the minister for transport, but I believe the Leader of the Government gave you an answer.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:09): I ask the minister, given her failure to indicate she would insist on the removal of the board—

Mr Gepp: It is not what you asked her.

Mr DAVIS: I did. ‘Will you insist’ is exactly what I said.

Members interjecting.

Mr DAVIS: You might want to cover up. Country rail—you might want to cover up. You should be worried about country services. We know—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you!

Mr DAVIS: Minister, isn’t it a fact that there would be more taxpayers money available for V/Line services if the hundreds of thousands of dollars had not been corruptly siphoned off to a nest of crooks appointed and contracted by the Andrews Labor government?

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, I will give you the opportunity to answer or not to answer; it is up to you.

Ms Symes interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. We will move on.

COVID-19

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:11): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer ensure that our local government list of priorities is considered in the upcoming budget? Local governments are certainly their community’s engagement experts. They know their community groups, they understand their diverse cultural and linguistic needs and they engage with their community every day through meetings, telephone, email, Facebook, newsletters and websites. They manage their multiple community services. They know the vulnerable members of their community and the needs of their community better than anyone else. Councils will play an essential role in the recovery from COVID for their communities. Treasurer, will the priorities of my community be your priorities?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:12): I thank Dr Cumming for her question for the Treasurer, and indeed for her advocacy for the important work that local governments do. I will take the opportunity to give a shout-out to our new local government minister, Shaun Leane. I think COVID has been a big strain on everyone, but the ability to connect via the internet has meant that the Minister for Local Government has been able to connect with every local government. How many local governments are there, Minister?

Members interjecting.

Ms SYMES: He has connected with all 79 local governments and heard their priorities and of course is a strong advocate for their interests. The Labor government has a strong history of working collaboratively with local government. One of the initiatives would be the Growing Suburbs Fund, which is something that is very important to peri-urban councils. Obviously councils are going to play a really big part in the economic and social recovery post this pandemic. We commend them for their efforts, and we look forward to continuing to work with them and support them financially.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:13): I thank the Leader of the Government. I look forward to the Treasurer’s response. My electorate has been the worst affected by COVID-19, with over 50 per cent of the active cases. The pandemic has exposed and, sadly, made worse many social, health, wellbeing and economic challenges. Disadvantaged regions such as mine in Western Metropolitan have experienced these issues for many years. Councils in my region and, I am sure, across Victoria have prepared detailed COVID recovery plans using the depth of knowledge of their communities. I appreciate that the local government minister has been meeting with the mayors of the 79 councils. However, Western Metropolitan is particularly vulnerable during this pandemic. Will the Treasurer ensure that the recovery plans are used to inform the budget?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:14): I refer the member to my response to the substantive question, and I will get the Treasurer to respond in detail to the points that the member has made.

Ministers statements: Gippsland employment

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:14): The government’s Working for Victoria program is supporting Victorians across the state, and I am delighted to advise the house today that through Working for Victoria some 100 new positions are very soon to be advertised throughout Gippsland. Of the new jobs, more than 40 positions are with the East Gippsland Shire Council. Workers will help with parks and gardens maintenance and bushfire remediation works in council-managed reserves and trails. These new roles will help support jobs throughout eastern Victoria while delivering valuable community repairs and upgrades. We will also see jobs advertised on the Working for Victoria platform for other local governments in the area and roles for young people within the Victorian government through the youth employment program.

Working for Victoria’s online jobs platform allows jobseekers to find work and access online training. It also helps employers to find people ready to work with the skills and experience to meet the needs of their businesses. We encourage jobseekers in Gippsland and indeed people right across the state to sign up to the online platform for more information about work opportunities that might be available in their region and in alignment with their skills and interests. Our new Gippsland jobs build on almost 230 jobs already created for people across Gippsland through Working for Victoria. The jobs already created include roles with Latrobe City Council, Ramahyuck District Aboriginal Corporation, Bass Coast Shire Council, Wurinbeena, East Gippsland Shire Council and Wellington Shire Council.

I would like to thank my colleagues Ms Shing and Ms Garrett for their advocacy and for their ongoing support of this program through communities across eastern Victoria. We know that people are doing it tough throughout the coronavirus pandemic, and Working for Victoria is all about helping people back to work. Since launching in April the Victorian government’s Working for Victoria Fund has created more than 10 000 jobs.

COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:16): My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood and Minister for Workplace Safety. Minister, given the detection of COVID-19 in a pupil at Goodstart Early Learning yesterday that saw at least one child quarantined and the centre closed, will the minister outline to the house what COVID-safe plans are in place for the early childhood education sector and what steps were taken in the case of Goodstart Early Learning?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:17): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. Can I start with acknowledging our early childhood educators and all of our early childhood services, who have been doing an incredible job during this pandemic. These have been particularly difficult and uncertain times, and they have done an outstanding job in keeping our youngest Victorians safe. I can certainly outline for the member some of the measures that we have taken to ensure that our early childhood settings are safe and there is a comprehensive plan in place should there be any positive COVID-19 cases detected.

In relation to the centre that the member has asked about, it is only currently that particular centre that is required to be closed due to a positive case of COVID-19. As the member may be aware, the Department of Health and Human Services, as the responsible department for the public health response and contact tracing, has recently had great success in locking down that northern metro outbreak, and I understand that DHHS has provided advice about close contacts in that centre. There have been testing and other actions that have needed to be taken put in place.

The role of the education department in this circumstance is to provide support and to very importantly make sure that the families that use that service understand, have all the information they need and are clear about what the requirements are. As part of its work last week the Department of Education and Training provided advice to all early childhood services, including family day care providers in the northern suburbs, and services have distributed information about COVID-19 symptoms, testing arrangements and relevant support to families.

In terms of some of the additional measures that our government has introduced in the early childhood setting, we have made sure that there are additional grants available for infection control in early childhood settings. As part of that we have provided additional funding so that there are grants available to all kindergarten services to help with additional cleaning and hygiene costs, and further funding is available if services are required to close and undertake infectious cleans in response to any positive COVID-19 cases. In addition to that we have provided some additional funding so that term 4 for most families is free, and there are a number of other initiatives that we are putting in place to support the early childhood setting in this difficult time.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:20): Minister, thank you for your response. Previously you have indicated to the house that there is a joint committee managing contact tracing across the state, and I note your WorkSafe officers are a part of this process and that COVID-safe plans are required for each workplace. I therefore ask: are some of the 90 fax machines recently ordered for the state’s contact-tracing efforts to be used by your departmental officers in the communication of COVID-safe plans, including in early childhood settings?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:20): There are a few issues conflated in that supplementary question, and I would seek some guidance from you, President. Contact—

Members interjecting.

Ms STITT: If I can get a word in, I will explain my point, and that is that contact tracing is with the Department of Health and Human Services. The joint unit that you have just described is in relation to high-risk workplace settings; it is not in relation to contact tracing. What I can indicate to you, Ms Crozier, is that there is work that is done jointly between the Department of Education and Training and DHHS contact tracers, as I just outlined in my answer to the substantive question, to ensure that families understand their obligations when there is a positive COVID test in an early childhood setting.

COVID-19

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:22): My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Health. Whilst I support the use of masks as a tool to control the spread of the coronavirus, I have never supported this being a mandatory measure. My office receives calls and emails every day from people with health conditions, significant trauma, disabilities and other reasons for a legitimate exemption from the mandatory rules. How do I know that it is legitimate? Well, I do not, and, frankly, it is none of my business. There is no requirement under the public health directions to provide proof, and given the nature of some of the trauma that some people have disclosed, it would not be appropriate to ask them anyway. This does not prevent harassment from the public or from Victoria Police, and many people have expressed that they are afraid to leave their homes. My question for the minister is: has the health minister discussed these significant impacts of the mandatory rule with the chief health officer?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:22): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question, and of course I will pass that on to the Minister for Health for a more detailed response. Having not been in the room with him having that discussion with the chief health officer, I would be pretty confident that those are the conversations that indeed he is having.

When it comes to mask wearing, I accept that it is inconvenient. It is not great having to wear one; I do not enjoy it myself. But I reflect on the experiences particularly of Shepparton, where that whole community was exposed to positive cases and there were a lot of close contacts identified, and mask wearing has been attributed to the fact that the cases did not spread more in that community. That certainly convinced me of the positivity of wearing masks.

I do acknowledge that it is causing certain cohorts of our community distress. There are appropriate exemptions applied to those that should not be forced to wear masks, and that is appropriate, and I acknowledge Dr Cumming’s contributions this week in calling out some of these issues. I would encourage all of the community to be very understanding and respectful of those people that have genuine reasons not to wear a mask. But for the rest of us, it is doing good. It is protecting us, and it is ensuring that we can ease restrictions and operate as closely as possible to normal as we can during a global pandemic.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:24): I thank the minister for passing that on to the health minister. I would make the point, though, that a lot of this sort of vilification that we have seen is because they are mandatory, not because people have been using masks. They are not mandatory in many other jurisdictions throughout the world or in Australia. However, while my supplementary question is for the Minister for Health, it might also be of interest to the Minister for Small Business and the minister for jobs and precincts. Another concern that several constituents have brought to my attention is related to how businesses are enforcing the mandatory mask rules. While Department of Health and Human Services advice is that businesses can and should require customers to wear a mask, it also states, ‘unless they have a valid exemption’. Many businesses and customers have negotiated this situation in good faith. However, many businesses are strictly enforcing the rule, leaving people with significant disabilities and other issues little choice. I support voluntary mask usage, but I share the concern of my constituents that people with significant disabilities—

The PRESIDENT: Time!

Mr LIMBRICK: or trauma may be prevented. My question is: how is the minister ensuring that businesses can reopen safely without preventing people with a lawful exemption from accessing goods and services?

The PRESIDENT: Mr Limbrick, I warned yesterday that we have to look at the clock. And it is happening again, I am sorry to tell you. I do not want to rule it out, but you are asking me to rule it out.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:26): I will refer the question to the relevant minister, and it can form part of the response to the substantive.

Ministers statements: goldmining

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:26): I wish to update the house today about the resurgence of goldmining and exploration in Victoria and the important role it plays in our regional economies. The government are a strong supporter of our minerals sector, and we continue to work with industry and businesses to facilitate this growth. Victoria has a 160-year connection to gold, with the first gold rush putting Victoria on the world map. Our world looks much different today, but once again Victoria is becoming a global leader in goldmining and exploring.

It is not just what we are hearing on the ground but also something backed up by the numbers. The most recent ABS data showed the highest quarterly mineral exploration expenditure figures ever recorded by the ABS. Expenditure on exploration in Victoria is now six times what it was in 2014–15. Concentrated in the golden triangle of Ballarat, Bendigo and Stawell, the gold sector is a large employer in our regional towns and has been growing exponentially over the past few years. It is also reflected in the strong interest in the north-central goldfields ground release.

There are plenty of operators, small and large, that are striking gold, but we cannot talk about gold without mentioning the Kirkland Lake and what they have done at Fosterville. They are a truly wonderful, class operation and the envy of the world, employing many locals and contributing back to their community. All going to plan, I will be visiting this mine next week. For the first time ever Victoria will produce the gold for the Melbourne Cup from the Fosterville mine—two icons of Victoria coming together. Victorian gold has experienced a renaissance, and we will continue to support this industry through this boom.

COVID-19

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:28): My question is for the Minister for Small Business. Minister, small businesses have been hit incredibly hard, with some closed now for as long as seven months. They are on their knees. Now, as they look to open up, many will need support with the development of COVID-safe plans. Minister, what support have you provided or advocated for for small businesses seeking to put in place QR code systems which link seamlessly to the state’s contract-tracing system?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:28): I thank Dr Bach for his question. His preamble was about safe and orderly reopening, which we have talked about a bit this week. It has been a very exciting and happy week for lots of people to be able to get back to work and get back to their businesses. But the substance of Dr Bach’s question I think is about how to integrate effective COVID-safe plans into businesses, with contact tracing. Now, as you would all be well aware, I am not the minister responsible for the contact-tracing system—

Mr Atkinson: You should be.

Ms PULFORD: thank you, Mr Atkinson—but I can certainly reflect on some of the things that people are doing within businesses to provide effective support. I know this has been said before by others, but the businesses in Kilmore, the businesses at Chadstone and the businesses at Shepparton have played a very, very important role when there have been outbreaks that have needed to be quickly contained, and I think where we are at now in Victoria is in some part a testament to the effective and quick tracing that particularly I think we saw reports of in Kilmore and in Shepparton. It is a great credit to those people.

It is important that effective records are kept so that tracing can be as effective as possible, and I will endeavour to not give you a whole bunch of opinions on contact tracing that I am not responsible for. My department supports businesses with information about how to prepare their COVID-safe plans. Every business in Victoria is required to provide a COVID-safe plan. Again, my observations are that in the month that regional Victoria has been open quite a number of businesses have chosen to use a QR code type system to capture those records for them. There are places that I have personally observed that run two systems, because of course not all consumers have a smartphone and not all consumers are ready to jump in and use something that is reasonably unfamiliar to them, whereas others of us would use them all the time. There are a lot of places that are doing that.

Those systems, though, are held by private companies that then provide that service to whoever has purchased it from them, so they do not provide that instant information relay to the Department of Health and Human Services contact-tracing system, but as members would be aware from media reports, there is some work in development to further explore what enhancements can be made there to complement the contact-tracing system.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:31): I do thank the minister for her response. I will ask in addition, Minister, by way of a supplementary question: will grants be available to support the installation of QR code systems? If so, how many and in what amount? If not, why not?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:32): I thank Dr Bach for his supplementary question. To date grants have not been specifically provided for that purpose; it has been a matter of individual businesses’ preference about how they wish to keep their records. Again, I do not have to hand data about what proportion of businesses are using this. I have some observations, which would suggest—and this is a very unscientific method—that maybe about half, based purely on my own observations, and an increasing number. Of course for many businesses like retail, like hospitality, like the beauty industry where very large numbers of people go on a regular basis, they have only been open a very short period of time. I imagine this is something a lot of people are exploring and thinking about this week as they seek to do their bit to make our economy and our reopening COVID safe. There are grants that are provided to businesses for a whole lot of different purposes, but no, there is not a specific grant program for QR codes.

Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the statement by Robert Redlich, QC, Commissioner for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, that since IBAC was created in 2012 it has not received any increase to its budget and that:

This means that today IBAC cannot investigate a significant number of complaints of serious misconduct which may warrant our investigation.

And that:

As the core integrity institution of Victoria, it should not be necessary for me to publicly advocate for the Commission to be adequately resourced to enable basic maintenance of existing service capacity.

What is the Treasurer’s response to these serious and considered statements?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:34): I thank Mr Hayes for his question. Similarly to the question that I was asked by Mr Davis previously, the IBAC institution have an important function of uncovering and dealing with inappropriate behaviour, and we thank them for the work they do. I would point to year-on-year increases to the budget, but for a detailed response I will refer your question to the Treasurer and provide an answer in accordance with the standing orders.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:34): Thank you, Minister. My supplementary question is: given the recent revelations concerning serious corrupt conduct within Victoria’s public transport sector, the earlier revelations concerning corruption at Casey council involving councillors and property developers and the embarrassment of a New South Wales inquiry establishing corruption and visa fraud at Crown Casino, will the Treasurer increase IBAC’s budget so it can properly tackle corruption in Victoria?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:35): I will indeed seek further particulars in relation to that question from the Treasurer and provide a written response.

Ministers statements: Pick My Project

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:35): Today I would like to update the house on the great outcomes from the funding program called Pick My Project. Pick My Project is a $30 million community grants initiative that has empowered Victorian community organisations to develop project ideas and to let the local community actually vote on those particular initiatives. These projects were grouped in metropolitan and regional partnerships. I know Minister Symes has seen some great outcomes in the regional projects from Pick My Project. There are 120 projects across Melbourne that are now coming to fruition from that great funding program.

I want to point out one notable example: the tireless work of Sikh Volunteers Australia. These are the men and women we saw during the bushfires and during the local challenge of the global pandemic cooking delicious meals for the community. Pick My Project funded Sikh Volunteers Australia for three projects that were popularly voted to the tune of $300 000-plus. One project was a new community kitchen. Another project was a new delivery van. Another project was to develop a community centre. I am calling this: these men and women are superstars. They represent everything that is good about Melbourne and Victoria, especially when some of our communities desperately need a lift. So Pick My Project just from that one example should be looked upon as a great program, and I think we all do.

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:38): Regarding questions today: Mr Davis’s question and supplementary to the Treasurer, two days; Mr Grimley’s question and supplementary to the minister for police, two days; Dr Cumming’s question and supplementary, two days; Mr Limbrick’s question and supplementary, two days; and Mr Hayes’s question and supplementary, two days.

Rulings by the Chair

Questions on notice

The PRESIDENT (12:38): Further to the point of order raised by Ms Lovell on Wednesday, 28 October, I note the Minister for Education had responded to the member’s question on notice in August and I wish to put that on record, but I have received a written request from Ms Lovell seeking the further reinstatement of these questions on notice directed to the Minister for Education. Having reviewed the responses I order that questions on notice 2059, 2060, 2063, 2064 and 2067 to 2074 be reinstated in full. Questions on notice 2057, 2061 and 2065 are to be partially reinstated. Part of question on notice 2058 is to be reinstated. Part of question on notice 2062 is to be reinstated. Part of question on notice 2066 is to be reinstated.

I am of the view that the minister has answered questions on notice 2250, 2259 and 2260. On the other ones, I advise the house that having reviewed the written response provided by the Minister for Regional Development to Ms Crozier’s question without notice of 28 August 2020 relating to the I Cook Foods closure I am of the opinion that the minister has not answered the supplementary question and I order a further written response under standing order 8.07 be provided to Ms Crozier’s supplementary question.

While I am on these procedures, I have to remind members about the protocol of the house under standing orders. Sometimes we do things that we do not mean to do, but unfortunately I have to uphold the standing orders. Time is very important. We have two clocks, one behind me and one there, so it is important for members to look at the time. The other option is that you might raise your question as a constituency question or even as an adjournment matter. If you seek something from a minister, raise it at the beginning. I believe that former presidents have put that before me. Mr Atkinson has raised this and Mr Leane has raised this, and I am raising it again. So please look at the clock, or otherwise I will have to stop you.

Constituency questions

Western Victoria Region

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:41): My constituency question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Coordination of Health and Human Services: COVID-19. In regional Victoria you can rightfully go to the pub with people from other households and enjoy not wearing a mask whilst drinking, eating and chatting, which is great. You can also access dental treatment and a range of other services without having to wear a mask. However, you cannot access facial or skin treatments, some of which only take 15 minutes, as you are required to wear a mask. Some of these treatments are vital to certain skin conditions. There are many clients of businesses missing out on this medical treatment which is critically necessary. These professionals are qualified and most have completed pre-COVID training in infection control. These clinics are also willing to have extra training as required before opening. My question is: can the minister explain why skin and beauty clinics cannot work in a COVID-safe environment and why clients with skin conditions requiring medical intervention are missing out on treatment due to the requirement for them to wear a mask?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:42): My question is to the Minister for Health, and it relates to the volume of colposcopy referrals. Women are undergoing necessary screening for cervical cancer. One of the issues that I am very concerned about are the impacts of COVID-19 on the wait lists that were there prior to COVID-19 hitting Victoria. I have seen a letter from a major provider, the Royal Women’s Hospital—I have worked at the Women’s as many of you know; it is a fabulous hospital. But due to the volume of colposcopy referrals in the last 12 months and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Women’s are now prioritising high-risk women to undertake further screening. My concern is those women that may be at lower risk who are putting off their screening and need to be followed up, so I ask the minister to provide the latest figures for those women who are waiting for colposcopies and follow-up treatment and cervical screening for cancer.

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:43): My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and it follows the recent release of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office Reducing Bushfire Risks audit. For my electorate of Northern Victoria Region much of that audit’s content is highly relevant and topical after last summer’s disastrous bushfires and given that another fire season is now imminent. I refer particularly to recommendation 13, which the government is reported to have accepted. This specifies that the minister’s department together with Parks Victoria, the CFA, Fire Rescue Victoria and local councils should collect empirical evidence after bushfire events to assess the effectiveness of different fuel management treatments, including planned burning, mulching, slashing and mineral earth breaks. I ask the minister: what parts of that work have already been undertaken and how in northern Victoria in the wake of last season’s fires and when will the remaining parts of it be completed?

Northern Metropolitan Region

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:44): My constituency question is to the new Minister for Mental Health, and it concerns the proposed drug injecting room at the Queen Victoria Market. On Friday, 5 June 2020, the Andrews government announced they would build a drug injecting room at the Cohealth facility located in Victoria Street, Melbourne—a slap in the face to the Queen Victoria Market traders, the many small businesses and the local residents of inner Melbourne. Earlier this year I tabled a petition with 249 names asking that the government reverse this decision on putting a drug injecting room near the Queen Victoria Market, one of our top tourist icons. On 21 July the City of Melbourne passed a motion against this injecting room at the Cohealth facility. I have been advised that many traders, after attending a council elections forum, believe the government’s injecting room is already a done deal and there is nothing that can be done to move the location. My question for the minister is: will the minister respect the local residents, the council, the market traders and the shoppers and rule out this location near the Queen Victoria Market for a drug injecting room?

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:45): My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place. Further to my adjournment in October 2019 calling for the Bulla bypass to be built, will you provide an update for the Bulla and surrounds community regarding where your investigation is up to; whether it will, according to the former minister’s response, lead to finalising the land corridors needed for a future major road link from the bypass to the Bulla township; and whether the business case process will be prepared and considered in this budget cycle? Bulla is a relatively small community, but that does not make its needs less worthy. After waiting decades the community deserves this important project to be finalised.

Western Metropolitan Region

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:46): My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning. The 3AW Rumour File, one of the more reliable sources of information in this town, this morning reported that Minister Wynne will today sign the permits necessary for the dumping of carcinogenic toxic soil in Sunbury, Bulla, Ravenhall and Bacchus Marsh. This is a monumental decision which will impact many thousands of my constituents. If approved, this will threaten their health, fill their roads with around 1000 extra trucks per day and poison nearby waterways that will impact local flora and fauna—all this without any genuine attempt to consult with those most impacted. Putting aside Labor’s clear distaste for Melbourne’s west, will the minister defer his decision on this matter until he has listened to the local communities facing most harm from this toxic dumping?

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:47): My question is to the Minister for Fishing and Boating. One of my staff, who is a regular to boat ramps in my electorate, has told me of numerous boat owners who are shocked that the 25-kilometre rule is still applicable even when on the water. One individual at the ramp, who lives approximately 24 kilometres away, said it is barely worth going to all the effort when he can only go 600 metres offshore. For fishermen this is just a tease. I am sure this is the case for many boat owners. However, there is objectively no risk of transmitting the virus once on the water. Boat owners respect the space of others and will avoid passing or anchoring too close. It is unspoken boating etiquette. My question is: has the minister raised this issue with the Minister for Health and the chief health officer to ensure that the rules set up to protect public health also make sense?

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:48): My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and concerns the irresponsibility of whoever thinks that it is a good idea for roadsides to be places of biodiversity, wildlife corridors and conservation zones instead of safe places. The St Patricks Day fires in my Western Victoria electorate in 2018 destroyed 40 000 hectares, 25 houses, innumerable farm sheds and livestock. Roadside vegetation provided the wick for this fire spread. We appear to have learned nothing, because the roadside vegetation is now even more rampant thanks to the fabulous wet season and the burnt debris left by the fire on roadsides, notably on the Princes Highway near Garvoc. It is another bushfire waiting to happen. It would be entirely irresponsible to do nothing, so I ask the minister: what specific and measurable action is he personally taking to ensure this vegetation is removed and state roads are made safe before the fire season is upon us?

Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:49): My constituency question today is for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Recently we were contacted by the Yeng Gali Mullum choir, a reconciliation choir that was started by the elders in 2014 at the Mullum Mullum Indigenous Gathering Place in Melbourne’s outer east. Since then they have shared their music across Victoria through a number of their performances. The Yeng Gali Mullum choir is more than just your local singing group. It is the heart and soul of the local Indigenous community, a place to learn and share their Indigenous culture with others through song. Sadly, COVID restrictions have meant that there have been no gatherings at the Mullum Mullum Indigenous Gathering Place, a loss of connection and in particular no choir practice. It is the choir’s longstanding dream to professionally record their music and to share it and connect with the wider Victorian community. As a not-for-profit community group they need our help to make it a possibility. The information I seek is: what support is there for the Yeng Gali Mullum choir so they can continue their role in the community?

Eastern Metropolitan Region

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:50): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. In an article in the Age newspaper on the 9th of this month it was reported that staff, including nurses, at Box Hill Hospital had been banned from wearing N95 masks unless they were working with the highest risk patients. This was not limited to the hospital supply of masks. Even if nurses brought the masks from home, they were not permitted to wear them. N95 masks, as many in this place know, are the industry standard to limit transmission of COVID-19. Given the huge risks in a hospital environment and given that there was a recent outbreak of COVID-19 at Box Hill Hospital, nurses should be able to take all measures necessary to protect themselves. Minister, why were nurses banned from wearing appropriate PPE? When will the government finally ensure that all frontline heroes keeping us safe are safe themselves?

Northern Victoria Region

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:51): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. Minister, how many days of zero cases do northern Victorian communities have to have before the masks can become voluntary? A few days ago the Border Mail published an article titled ‘Albury Wodonga Health goes 100 days without recording coronavirus case’. Most of northern Victoria has gone months with no COVID cases. Most regional Victoria communities, like Wodonga, have never had a case, but we are all forced to wear our masks everywhere. Summer is coming, and soon we will be forced to wear masks on days when the temperature is north of 40 degrees. Meanwhile, just across the borders, masks are a long-forgotten pain. Bubble residents can cross, after waiting in a queue, and take the masks off, and very many do, yet there are no cases. Minister, trust us. We are adults. We know how to wash our hands. We know how to assess risk. Let us take the masks off. We can carry them with us and put them on if we think they are needed.

Bills

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

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (12:52): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill today.

Mr Tarlamis: It’s a good bill.

Mr GEPP: It is a great bill, Mr Tarlamis, and what is even better is I will get to commence this contribution before the lunch break and I might resume after the break as well. I want to talk about the positive nature of the bill, but I also want to contrast that with the approach of those opposite when they had their hands on the lever, so to speak. Of course it is the Leader of the Opposition in this place who was the Minister for Health for four years when they were in power. The contrast between the two approaches could not be greater.

I might reserve my comments about the approach that this government has taken until after lunch, and I might focus just before lunch maybe even on giving those opposite a bit of indigestion prior to them consuming their food. Of course members will recall that they went to war with our nurses and they had a significant industrial dispute in 2011 based around a pay agreement where they were also trying to reduce nurse-patient ratios. They were attacking them. Mr Davis was leading from the front—that was his approach to health care in the state of Victoria under his leadership, as the minister, as the leader, and he has not learned anything. He has not learned anything, because today we have heard again his approach to this pandemic. And what does he want? He wants our resources taken away from the management of the pandemic to satisfy his need to have a piece of paper in front of him where he can determine whether or not the public health team and the chief health officer in this state have put strategies in place that are right. He wants to be the judge and jury of those things. But unlike Mr Davis and those opposite, we do not go to war with our healthcare workers. They are a very, very important part of our community and are leading the charge. I think the Premier has described them as the last line of defence in the management of this pandemic because they are the ones that are going into places where most of us could not even contemplate going in the management of this pandemic.

So those opposite cannot be trusted. Mr Davis cannot be trusted. His modus operandi when he was in power was to cut, close and privatise. They were the three objectives. I think he asked yesterday—or somebody asked a question over there—‘What are your three priorities?’. I think it was a question asked of Minister Stitt: ‘What are your three priorities?’. They tried to come up with some sort of gotcha moment. But we did not have to wonder what Mr Davis’s three priorities were when it came to management of the healthcare system when he was the minister for four years between 2010 and 2014. We know what his three priorities were: cut, close, privatise—‘Let’s do those three things’. We have seen it before, and we know that if he were given the opportunity ever again, then that would absolutely be the modus operandi of this bloke.

Now he waltzes back into the chamber because we are actually exposing his approach to health care, and he does not like it.

Mr Davis interjected.

Mr GEPP: He does not like it; he blows a valve. Every time you bring up his record he gets all toey, he gets all testy. He cuts, he closes, he privatises. You see the blood pressure start to rise whenever you uncover what Mr Davis actually did when he was the Minister for Health in this state and we go back to his reign of power. What did he do? Of course he did nothing positive. He did nothing during that four-year period except go to war with our frontline healthcare workers—the biggest industrial dispute in nursing for many a long year, for almost 20 years. Who was the architect of it? Mr Davis. But he comes in here and says, ‘I want all of these documents. I want this, I want that’. I think he still thinks he is actually the minister, that he has got some capacity and he has got some sort of expertise in being able to have a look over these things and then stand up and say, ‘Oh, no, no. I don’t think that’s quite right’. Well, Mr Davis, your reign was four years too long as the Minister for Health. Heaven forbid that you should ever be in a position to hold that position again. Goodness help the Victorian healthcare system because I think we would all fret for those people. So unlike your record of cutting, closing and privatising, we are actually about—

The PRESIDENT: Order! We will have a lunchbreak. I will resume the Chair at 2 o’clock, and Mr Gepp will continue.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.06 pm.

Mr GEPP: I will just perhaps conclude my earlier remarks and my focus in relation to Mr Davis by saying to those opposite: please do not rush to lance that leadership boil, we are quite enjoying the tactics of Mr Davis on these matters.

But I do want to focus on some of the key elements of the changes to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015. The changes will of course bring about a rounding in the methodology. It will complete the rounding methodology across remaining shifts and add settings to create some consistency in staffing workload determinations through the act, and that is very, very important. These things are not arrived at magically; they take a lot of hard work with a lot of consultation and input from nursing and midwife staff, who know their jobs better than anybody. Being able to provide a methodology that gives them certainty, both in terms of their work-life balance and importantly in terms of their ability to provide the level of care that they do, is so, so important.

These changes will also mean improved staffing levels in residential aged care and rehabilitation wards. Staffing numbers will also increase through the provision of an in-charge nurse or midwife across a range of settings, including on night shifts. For anybody who has been a shift worker, we all know the issues associated with working those odds hours. And having again those staffing numbers in place across a range of settings is so important to improve patient safety and to ensure that the staff have the necessary care and wellbeing available to them in their workplace. I see Mr Bourman nodding, and he would understand completely the issues around this.

I am really very pleased about the impact that these changes will have in rural and regional areas—for example, in places like Colac Area Health, Kyneton District Health Service, Terang & Mortlake Health Service and down in Ms Shing’s electorate of Eastern Victoria in South Gippsland. Down in those parts of the world they will benefit from an additional after-hours coordinator, acknowledging the increasing complexity of coordinating a range of services that these facilities will now provide. The bill acknowledges the requirement for additional staff to manage the increasing complexity often associated with the coordination of mixed services in smaller rural services. Coming from regional Victoria, my electorate of Northern Victoria—and I have mentioned Eastern Victoria and Western Victoria—we understand that many of these small regional and rural health services punch above their weight. They do an extraordinary amount of work, and of course they do it across many, many different types of medical care. So to have these additional after-hours coordinator positions is so, so important. And it will apply specifically to level 4 hospitals that are operating a birthing suite and/or an emergency department with greater than 2500 presentations per annum. I have mentioned some of the places that will be impacted by that change.

There will be a reclassification for Warrnambool down in western Victoria. Specifically, the Warrnambool Base Hospital will be reclassified from a level 3 hospital to a level 2. ‘So what’, you say? Well, importantly, what that will do is increase the staffing levels on medical and surgical wards, acknowledging the changing needs of the local community. We often hear about the issues related to regional and rural health services, and this bill through this particular change will ensure that there are, through that reclassification, increased staffing levels on those important medical and surgical wards to improve the level of health care for people in regional and rural Victoria. Demand on the healthcare services in Warrnambool continues to grow, we do know, as a result of the continued population growth within the City of Warrnambool. So there are many, many aspects to the improvements being made under this bill.

I want to finish with another couple of little contrasts between the approach of the Andrews Labor government since 2014 compared to those opposite. What did they do? Well, thankfully rural and regional Victoria have now had almost six years of solid investment—record funding year after year after year. Not once have we gone backwards—not once. We have improved and we have increased—and we do so proudly. Mr Leane was telling me this just before the lunch break. He said, ‘Did you know that the Andrews Labor government in 2019–20 invested $12.4 billion for hospital operating budgets?’. That included the $200 million for the flu package. And he also drew to my attention very importantly that that level of funding in 2019–20 was 40 per cent greater than the level of funding when the Liberals were last in office in 2013–14.

So when it comes to health care, you can talk the talk but you have got to be able to walk the walk. You have got to be able to walk it as well. You have got to put your money where your mouth is, you have got to stump up, you have got to give the support that is so necessary to our fantastic healthcare workers—and who better than our nurses and our midwives? You have got to put in place the systems and the funding to ensure that they are able to deliver the quality of health care which they do deliver so wonderfully well to all of Victoria. With those comments I commend the bill to the house.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (14:14): I will begin by stating that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party supports this legislation. As I said in my speech in February 2019 on the forerunner bill to this one, I commend the government on its establishment in law of the nurse-to-patient ratios that are again at the heart of this new bill. I also congratulate the government for what I regard as its clear willingness in this area to introduce incremental changes to the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Act 2015 in order to continue to enhance how it actually works in practice.

On that note, I am pleased to see that two specific concerns that I raised in my speech on 19 February 2019 have now been directly addressed in this new bill. I said back then that, and I quote:

… extra resourcing … will undoubtedly need to be devoted to administration … in addition to frontline care itself …

I also referred to, and I quote:

… the problems around complexity of cases and the reality that modern case mixes are not always amenable to being reduced to and defined by a predetermined formula or equation.

I am therefore especially glad to see that the government have now specifically incorporated into this bill some changes that acknowledge those concerns. I sincerely thank them for doing so through the introduction of the in-charge nurse or midwife and the after-hours coordinator. Those are very important changes, particularly for hospitals in rural and regional areas.

I might add that I did also raise at some length in that speech on 19 February last year the clear and urgent need for governments to address what I described as the enormous problem of the generally inadequate resourcing of aged care in Australia. I added that the objective of enhancing aged care should be a major priority of every Australian parliament and that all governments should explore the opportunity to do more in this field. It gives me no pleasure to observe just how fateful those words have proven to be in recent weeks and months in the midst of the COVID crisis. One of the things I also said on that day was, and I quote:

… if we are talking about improving the ratios of health professionals and carers to patients, it is very doubtful that there is a greater need for this to occur anywhere in the system than in the care of our senior citizens.

In the preceding year the AMA had observed that while bed number ratios for the general population had remained static in recent years, they had then plummeted to a 23-year low for Australians aged 65 and over. All of what I said was very true then, and it remains equally true now, so I would continue to urge all governments to improve the provisions of aged care. This is so important and so critical to good government in any civilised setting. There is no excuse ever for the neglect of our elderly citizens, and I would be horrified if by now there is anyone left in a senior position in government or in the public service anywhere in Australia who does not realise that.

Otherwise, only a small number of additional points of concern and uncertainty have arisen in the course of my scrutiny specifically of this new bill now before us. One of those is to do with the establishment of the new minimum qualifications for maternal and child health services. I have a very special regard for the importance of maternal and child health, so I certainly do not quibble in a broad sense with the government’s stated aim here of enhancing the delivery of child-, maternal- and family-centred practice and ensuring the availability of high-quality maternal and child health services. In fact the idea of establishing minimum qualifications for maternal and child health nurses is entirely sensible in principle.

I say that with particular reference to the appalling events at Bacchus Marsh hospital in 2013 and 2014, from which more than 100 troubling cases of stillbirths and neonatal deaths at the hospital have subsequently been identified by health authorities. In turn, as part of the investigations into these cases, VCAT ordered in 2018 that one of the hospital’s registered midwives never practise again. It found that she had committed serious professional misconduct on at least 10 occasions, including three cases that directly resulted in the deaths of babies, while she was responsible for patient care at that hospital. Those cases alone raise some questions about why minimum standards and qualifications have not existed until now in this area of the law.

That said, though, I will concede that I am also left to wonder exactly how the changes in this bill might fully deliver on that objective. There are some particularly important questions for me about what the specific implications of this kind of change are at many different levels in training and resourcing. Does this shift imply, for instance, that there have been longstanding and serious flaws in the teaching of maternal and child health nurses in Victoria? If so, what have they been, how are they now being overcome and who is responsible for this specifically? One would presume that a raising of the bar for qualifying as such a nurse might also mean there will be less of these professionals entering the Victorian healthcare sector in the future, and it would therefore be valuable for us to know if this is likely to create new shortfalls in some parts of the system. This is naturally an even more pertinent issue in rural and regional areas, to which it continues to remain so difficult to attract healthcare workers at all, let alone those in specialist fields.

A second outstanding issue that I would like to raise is another one faced by many rural and regional hospitals, and it is the matter of delays in the appointment of guardians to certain hospital patients. Unfortunately, there are still too many cases where hospital staff are unable to discharge a patient because they are still waiting for the formal appointment to that patient of a guardian. In these cases the guardian is regarded as being needed to help oversee their lifestyle, their personal decision-making and/or their recovery and subsequent care. Often there is a wait for a guardianship application to be processed through VCAT, so it is protracted and can last for several weeks or even a number of months. For the hospital concerned this essentially obliges them to keep the relevant patient under their care for all of that time. Typically they are also not publicly funded for that bed beyond a particular date. I have spoken about this before in the house, specifically in an adjournment matter in August last year. However, it is a matter that unfortunately still persists for some hospitals and patients and that clearly detracts from the time and the capacities of nurses on the relevant wards to provide full care to all of the patients there. Furthermore, my understanding is that there is no way of easily accounting for these particular circumstances in the application of their nurse-to-patient ratios.

The final live issue for me in relation to this bill at a much broader level is how the implementation of the ratios is currently being practically impacted and will continue to be impacted in the future by the ramifications of Victoria’s COVID-19 response. I would certainly be keen to seek the government’s latest reflections around the full COVID repercussions as they are now understood, both for current and future staffing and also for the financing of public hospitals across the state. Back in June I asked former Minister Mikakos in question time about those very issues. I did so on behalf of my constituents especially as a means of trying to understand how COVID preparedness and treatment efforts had practically affected the overall health budget, not to mention changes on wards and the likely redirection of funding from specific areas of activity in hospitals to others. Given the substantial acceleration of COVID cases in Victoria that occurred again shortly after that in July, these have all become even more important questions and issues now than they were then. We know especially from the developments in the aged-care sector and also from the concentration of coronavirus in many health workers both in Victoria and other parts of the world that this is an incredibly challenging time to work in those two sectors and indeed in any care-related role.

I will not delve any deeper into this issue for now, but along the Murray River we have also experienced many problems in relation to the functioning of hospitals and staffing in the face of the COVID-inspired closure of the border between New South Wales and Victoria. The sudden dislocation of dozens of specialists, clinicians and other frontline and administrative healthcare staff who were in effect unable to cross that border for many days after the initial closure in early July caused enormous upheavals at many levels, not least for those hospital administrators trying to ensure there was a satisfactory minimum complement of staff at all times to perform procedures and to care for patients.

I envisage the government will fully agree with me here that there will continue to be many really difficult, complex and challenging questions for hospitals around staffing and financing issues as a consequence of this pandemic for a very considerable time to come. For now, I will finish this speech where it began—by reaffirming that Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party will, even if it proceeds to a division, be supporting this bill. We strongly endorse the intent of this legislation, albeit with some caveats around it in relation to a small band of outstanding issues that continue to be associated with its administration and implementation on the ground.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (14:26): I rise to support the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020. It was a privilege to make my first bill contribution in this place when I spoke in support of the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2018. I am thrilled to now have the opportunity to support this Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill, which builds on that bill, together with legislation passed in the previous Parliament.

Enshrining nurse- and midwife-to-patient staffing ratios into law in 2015 is a proud achievement of this Labor government and one we remain deeply committed to. The bill includes some foundations that will build on that. The Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring that Victorians have access to high-quality and safe health care. In my electorate of Western Metropolitan Region access to high-quality health care and hospital services is a key issue for my constituents, and with the growing population in Melbourne’s west, investing in our healthcare system has never been more important.

Since 2014 the Andrews Labor government has committed an unprecedented $7 billion to Victorian health infrastructure, delivering the largest health build program in Victoria’s history. In my own region of Western Metropolitan Region we have built the new Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital in St Albans, expanded the Werribee Mercy, unveiled designs to upgrade the Sunshine Hospital emergency department—that work is actually now well underway—and provided up to $1.4 billion to deliver a new Footscray Hospital, the largest ever health infrastructure investment in our state’s history. This is about making sure that local families are not only seen faster but receiving better care—the best care—because just like the rest of Melbourne and the rest of Victoria they deserve nothing less, and getting them back on their feet is a key priority of this government.

Victoria has one of the world’s best public healthcare systems, and the amendment in this bill that we are considering today will stand forever part of this long and proud history. We recognise, however, that a world-class health system is not just bricks and mortar. It is driven by those who work in our healthcare settings—our healthcare heroes. At the heart of what makes Victoria’s healthcare system world leading are our incredible nurses and midwives. I do want to pay tribute in this contribution to our nurses, midwives and other clinical and non-clinical healthcare professionals for the outstanding work they have done in what has been an incredibly difficult and challenging year. They really are our heroes and during this unprecedented health crisis our very last line of defence against this highly infectious and deadly virus.

I also want to acknowledge the vital role of the Australian Nursing & Midwifery Federation, led by secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick, and acknowledge the union’s leadership during this time as well as their advocacy and depth of understanding of Victoria’s healthcare needs. Members will recall that the last time that the Liberals were in government they waged industrial war against our healthcare professionals, engaging in protracted and delayed negotiations with nurses and midwives in an attempt to remove nurse-patient ratios from their enterprise agreement. I can remember those events vividly. At the time the disrespect shown to nurses and midwives by the government was quite stark, and it has stuck with me ever since.

In contrast we now have a government here in Victoria that listens to the experts, who tell us that evidence demonstrates that having higher staffing numbers leads to not only more engaged workforces but better patient care outcomes. There is little disagreement globally about the relationship between nurse staffing levels and patient outcomes in healthcare settings. That is why ahead of the 2018 election we promised a re-elected Andrews Labor government would protect and strengthen ratios in two stages. This includes funding for an additional 1100 new nurses over two stages to support the delivery of a comprehensive package of ratio improvements in our hospital system. The first stage of that amendment to the safe patient care act that I mentioned earlier passed in March 2019 and represented the first time that nurse- and midwife-to-patient ratios had been meaningfully reviewed since their beginning in around 2000. This bill today delivers on phase 2 of our election commitment and delivers further improvements to see a further 500 nurses and midwives employed in our public health system, from our busiest metropolitan hospitals through to those smaller rural services that are so important across our state.

The bill recognises that nurses and midwives are the backbone of our healthcare system, dedicating their lives to caring for others. The bill acknowledges the significant contribution these professionals make to the health and wellbeing of Victorians. In 2020 we celebrate the International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife. I think it is quite poignant then that we are debating this bill now, as it presents us with an opportunity to say thank you. We will never forget the year that we have had—one where nurses and midwives have demonstrated extraordinary commitment through their care, compassion and capability. I will conclude my remarks by simply stating that ratios matter. Ratios are important to protect patient safety, and this government will always protect them. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:32): I am pleased to rise to briefly speak about the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020—or 2019 because, yes, it is one that has been sitting on our pink for quite some time. Certainly I was fortunate to be here in 2015 when we first started this notion of ratios, and while the idea began in 2000 it seems that certainly we have seen ratios being taken very seriously over the last four to five years. This new tranche will provide that extra support we need in those postnatal wards, birthing suites and residential aged care and will also reclassify the Warrnambool Base Hospital, which will provide extra support down there. I certainly recall, and I think Mr O’Donohue will recall, that when we were down that way during the end-of-life choices inquiry it was noted the real need for extra support to deal with not only the growing population but an ageing population down there and with some of the remoteness of those communities down there. So that is really pleasing.

Now, I remember when I last spoke about nurse-patient ratios, which must have been earlier this year, in COVID time. It seems like a long time ago, but I do not think that it was such a long time ago. It was a time when I wanted to use the heart emoji in Hansard, and I understood that Hansard was saying no to emojis. I have just checked; the Oxford dictionary is now accepting emojis, so I am wondering if Hansard can accept the heart emoji.

Mr Leane: Don’t mess with Hansard. Trust me!

Ms PATTEN: In fact the Oxford Dictionaries 2015 Word of the Year was the ‘face with tears of joy’ emoji, so I am hoping one day we may see heart emojis in Hansard, and that is for our nurses.

I certainly think that since I first mentioned that, our appreciation for nurses has skyrocketed. We used to sometimes call them the front line, but in fact conversely we now think of them as the last line of defence. If our masks are our first line of defence, if washing our hands is our first line of defence, then our nurses become our last. We have seen how critical nurses are in our society. It kinds of pains me in fact just to hear myself using those military terms for nurses, because I do not think that is appropriate and I do not think that using that sort of military language and strategy is what is going to work for us. We actually, in looking at COVID, need to take a health approach; we need to possibly stop trying to think of this as some sort of arms war or some sort of race in that way.

But as we know, as we have seen, these changes are really just going to give nurses the basic needs so that they have enough staff, so they can catch a quick break, so they can have time to re-energise between shifts and so we can look at reducing that nurse burnout. I know during this year I have spoken to the union and the union head, Lisa Fitzpatrick, and that has been her concern, the wellbeing of her nurses, because they put us before them almost all the time. They let themselves get incredibly run-down to ensure that we stay safe.

I think, in looking at that, I would also take this opportunity to call to, well, Mr O’Donohue for some federal assistance. Maybe he can speak to his federal colleagues around providing paid pandemic leave for our nurses and healthcare workers. I know it is a federal matter, so I would urge that we get our friends from the opposition to speak to their mates in federal government to support pandemic leave for nurses and other healthcare workers. I think that would be of great assistance, because COVID has shown us the fault lines in our healthcare system and the problems that have been raised here many times. Certainly Ms Maxwell raised a number of those concerns in her contribution, and I do concur. We have seen our nurses stretched too thin. We have seen their sick leave being inadequate. Nurses do not want to go to work sick, but in many cases they do because there are just not enough people to cover those shifts and their sick leave has run out.

So this bill has support from, it would appear, everyone in this chamber, which is a lovely change and probably a lovely way to finish this week. When we think about this, I wonder if we had listened to nurses sooner, if we had really taken this on sooner, whether we would have been in a better place. In my electorate, when the housing towers in Flemington and Kensington were closed down, many people contacted my office and said, ‘Why did we send in 500 police? Why didn’t we send in 500 nurses?’. Because that would have been the health response that was needed there. It would have been a much better response, I think, but we simply could not; we do not have that sort of surge capacity in our healthcare system, and we should.

So I am also very happy to see the government providing more midwives. I certainly have one of the busiest birthing hospitals in the state in my electorate, Northern Hospital in Epping, which is I think getting about 70 new babies every week. There are also 70 new houses being built out in Hume every week. This will really help them up there. The extra midwives will be incredible for the mums and nurses in the postnatal wards up there. At the moment we have got one midwife to four mums and four babies, and if there are no twins on an evening shift a midwife will be responsible for six to eight mums currently. So this legislation will actually really lighten the load for all midwives, but particularly I would like to do a shout-out to the midwifes at the Northern Hospital.

We see that those midwives, given those numbers, are just constantly on the run to give every mum and baby the medical attention they require, and sometimes, as I have been hearing, it is just not possible. They are just trying to do their best, and this puts strain and stress on nurses who are feeling that they want to do everything they possibly can but it just physically is not possible. In fact one nurse was telling me that in one case she rushed to assist in an emergency in another room and left her patients for 3 or 4 minutes, and in that time one of the babies she was responsible for had its heart rate drop really dangerously. So then she had to hit the emergency button in the next room, and she was running from emergency to emergency and there was chaos. The strain and stress that that put on that woman is something that we really need to avoid and we can avoid, and this bill will assist us in doing this.

More nurses and midwives will benefit our society. It will not just benefit us, but it will hopefully benefit the nurses so that they can work better and so that they can work without the stress and strains that they are experiencing today. I am very happy to support this legislation. I know it will improve safety, and I continue to emoji heart our nurses.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (14:41): I rise today alongside many of my colleagues to commend a bill to the house which builds upon the investments that we made not just in previous times in government but also as one of our very first legislative acts upon being returned in 2018—namely, to recognise and through our actions better respect the work which is done by our nurses and by our midwives across and around the state.

In the initial tranche of these changes we provided sufficient funding for 600 additional nurses. This bill now builds in an additional funding package that will enable 500 further nurses to be engaged, bringing it to a grand total of 1100 nurses, with further work to follow to build upon the ratio model, not just within our clinical and hospital settings but also to continue discussions to broaden the ratio concept out to other parts of the health system, including an area very dear to my heart, that being mental health and the provision of mental health services across the state.

The year 2020 is the International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife and it marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Florence Nightingale, who is widely recognised as a symbol of care, support, compassion, humanity and expertise for those who are vulnerable, who are suffering and who require a steady hand in order to make their way through physical and invisible times of danger and difficulty. It is therefore really fitting that we continue the work that we have begun by passing this bill as expeditiously and positively as we possibly can.

This is a significant departure from the debates which we had in this place when the first bill around nurse-to-patient ratios was introduced back in 2019. When we stood in this place there was not unanimous support for these reforms. It was not a discussion which was the subject of heated agreement. What we did see was division and in fact what I would say was derision and contempt for the work that nurses do in our community and the vital roles that they fulfil in not just saving lives but improving quality of life and prolonging life as well. We have come a long way since then, and it is good to hear from the opposition that they do not oppose this particular bill.

It is, however, a somewhat unusual position for those opposite to take when it relates to bills which increase workforce numbers and which invest in better terms and conditions for frontline employees across our public sector as well as our social and community services sector. It is in fact a subject of enormous frustration for many of the very hardworking unionists who have fought for many years to have recognition of the importance of better terms and conditions of employment, and it is something which very clearly correlates to success in collective bargaining when Labor governments are in power and to slides backward when we see Liberal-National government take the reins. This is nowhere more evident to my mind than in the work which was undertaken by the Kennett government. We know what Irene Bolger, as the head of the nurses union, had to face at that particular time. Then in the last Liberal government, when in fact Mr Davis in this place was the health minister, we saw paramedic attrition increase to record highs. We saw ramping. We saw huge pressure and indeed trauma in our paramedic workforces. It is good to see therefore that only a couple of years later the pendulum appears, from the coalition benches, to have swung back to something which approaches reasonableness.

So that is a step forward. I am looking forward to seeing further support from those opposite in this chamber and in this Parliament not just in the course of this government around what we can do to better support frontline workers but also in the work that they do, or should be doing, to encourage their colleagues in Canberra to put their money where their mouth is to deliver the resources necessary to build infrastructure, to better partner with the states and to improve upon the outcomes in critical care settings, including aged care in private sector facilities, where we have seen the all too tragic circumstances highlighted time and time again over the course of this year. But we also need to see those opposite continue to put pressure on their federal colleagues to have better partnerships for funding and to see a collaboration which is proportionate between the states and the commonwealth around the way in which we rise to meet the challenges not just in our urban and peri-urban environments but also in regional and rural settings, and this is something which we are working as a government here in Victoria to invest in. The Regional Health Infrastructure Fund has been extended. We have seen unprecedented capital investments across regional and rural Victoria, including in eastern Victoria for Wonthaggi, for the Latrobe Regional Hospital and for health services across Gippsland in particular and bush nursing services as well.

But this work must go on, and we must continue to respect all of the research which says very clearly that where we improve the number of people who are assigned to work with patients, clients and consumers in a clinical or non-clinical setting in fact we see better outcomes for patients. We see lower mortality, we see improved wellbeing and we see improved job satisfaction for people in those roles who do not have to face the enormous trauma of having to split their time in almost superhuman situations that require them to be in about eight places at once or otherwise to work long hours after their shifts are finished in order to get the work done and to make sure that patients are not left in precarious, uncomfortable or vulnerable positions. We know that cardiac arrest, that thrombosis, that sepsis, that bedsores and that pneumonia are all reduced in volume in a setting where we have additional nurses allocated to a clinical setting. We know that this makes sense across the board, and that is why it is incumbent upon us not just to pass this legislation but to have it reflected more broadly in terms and conditions which recognise and reflect the difficulty faced by nurses and midwives and also the mental health workforce as well once we get past this current chapter of our ratios work.

I want to pay tribute in the course of this discussion to everyone who has worked on our front line in the course of 2020, which has truly been an awful year in so many ways for so many people across Victoria. We have seen our nurses and our midwives step up time and time again. This has often been at great, great personal expense to them. It has often meant enormous personal sacrifice for them in having to isolate and to be away from their families at times when in fact they could use the support of those around them to get them through times of enormous trauma.

I do want to acknowledge the care and the expertise of these frontline workers, who were initially described as the front line and are now described as the last line of defence. We have seen lives saved. It is absolutely indisputable that our nurses have contributed to not just prolonging the lives of people in vulnerable situations throughout the pandemic and enabling them to recover but saving the lives of people who would otherwise have died. In addition to this, they have provided people with care and support, friendship and humanity at times when the world has been such a hostile and alienating place.

With those few words I want to commend the bill to the house and to thank every nurse out there who has made such a difference and every nursing student who will make such a difference into the future. We are determined to invest in you. We are determined to create and sustain a better healthcare system and to provide you with the resources, the training and the infrastructure not just that the Victorian public needs but which you as valuable workers deserve. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:52): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats opposed the substantive measures that this bill amends when they were first put up about a year ago. We said that legislated ratios for workplaces were a bad idea because the people in this place are not the experts in running medical facilities and it would mean that each case would end up having to go before Parliament to get fixed, and here we are. We will not oppose the passage of this bill because the bill will not create or abolish mandatory ratios in medical workplaces; it just tries to fix something the government broke when it brought this in in the first place.

What the Liberal Democrats would really like to see is laws like this, creating over-regulation, struck out altogether. Governments should be trying to make things more flexible, not less flexible, but we will not hold our breath. This government loves regulation in every aspect of the economy, but post COVID we need less red tape, not more of it. Let me put on record that the ratios in this bill will end up being dragged back into Parliament again and again and again over the coming years as evolving technology and workplace best practice make a mockery of this kind of top-down technocratic fantasy.

It seems like Parliament will decide how Victorian medical facilities are run rather than medical professionals for the foreseeable future. That is not good for Parliament, it is not good for medical professionals and it is not good for patients.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (14:53): It is a great day today. Not only are we celebrating the Day for Daniel for Bruce and Denise Morcombe up there in Queensland doing their magnificent walk, and I am wearing this tie in support of them—and of course, Ms Maxwell, it is good to see some people wearing red today—but it is also World Teachers Day, which is fantastic, paying tribute to the teachers out there, especially my wife. They are all inspirational. You all do a great job.

We have the Safe Patient Care (Nurse to Patient and Midwife to Patient Ratios) Amendment Bill 2020—momentous. I would like to make a brief contribution to the debate on this bill. The bill follows on from the government’s initial bill in 2019, which Ms Maxwell and I were happy to support then and we are happy to support this now. This bill seeks to achieve a number of things, including amending the rounding method used when determining staffing requirements, amending certain nurse-to-patient and midwife-to-patient ratios on specified shifts in certain wards and amending the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 to require providers of certain maternal and child health services to employ or engage nurses for those services only if the nurses have prescribed maternal and child health nurse qualifications. It incorporates four main sets of changes to the structure of the nursing and midwifery workforce within the Victorian public health system. Chiefly, it widens the application across the health system of recently changed rounding methods used for the determination of minimum nurse-to-midwife staffing requirements via nurse-to-patient ratios.

I truly believe if there was one positive to come from this stubborn pandemic it is that the public now have a greater appreciation and understanding of the importance of our healthcare workers, as we have all said in this chamber today. From the administration staff who welcome patients in our hospitals to the nurses, doctors and surgeons who treat their patients, all of their work is invaluable. It has not gone unnoticed, and we thank you very much. Despite the importance of healthcare workers, resourcing has long been an issue. Our nurses have a challenging enough job without having to worry about inadequate staffing. This is why this bill is so important. It enshrines in legislation the minimum number of nurses per patient for hospitals. You can have the most modern and innovative hospital wards in the world—and in many cases we do—but if there are not enough qualified nurses to look after these individuals then all of that investment and resources are made redundant. Nurses really are on the front line in terms of patient care in our hospitals.

As a member for Western Victoria it would be remiss of me not to mention that this bill reclassifies Warrnambool Base Hospital from a level 3 hospital to a level 2 hospital from 1 July 2022. I think this is an important change which will result in more staffing at the Warrnambool Base Hospital and hopefully result in better quality of care for patients. I have been in contact with local stakeholders, including the mayor and the CEO of the Warrnambool City Council, who all support this reclassification. The government has gone to some effort to explain that between the same bill in 2019 and this bill now there will be the creation of over 1100 new jobs—600 through the previous bill and 500 through this bill. More jobs for nurses and midwives in Victoria’s public hospitals can only be a good thing, not only for all Victorian patients but for those aspiring towards careers in these fields.

Finally, I would like to place on the record some remarks about aged care. As Australia faces an ageing population it is going to become increasingly important that our aged-care sector is adequately resourced and staffed.

A member interjected.

Mr GRIMLEY: I am not referring to you, Mr Barton; you have got a while to go yet. I note that this bill does not expand ratios in aged care, as the provision of this sector, as has been stated before, is a commonwealth responsibility. That said, there are of course a handful of state-funded and state-managed public aged-care facilities. Ms Maxwell was right to place on the record our party’s views on aged care in 2019 when debating the previous instalment of this bill, whilst in the Senate Derryn Hinch aptly stated that politicians forget the only difference between them and old people is that ‘they got there first’.

Of course this is true, but it also speaks to a bigger problem about aged care. There is seemingly a disconnect between politicians and aged care. Only last week the Premier shared his concerns about placing his mother in some aged-care homes, and this is understandable. When you have been told that your parent or grandparent is safe in their room and you then find out that they have passed away without anyone checking in on them, you simply do not care if it is a federal, state or local government fault. You just want the issue fixed. COVID-19 has shone a spotlight on the awful state of aged care in Australia—some patients being showered every four days, disabled people being prematurely locked up in aged-care facilities due to a lack of alternative accommodation, and the list goes on.

While this bill improves conditions and resourcing for nurses in hospitals, the same approach must be taken towards outlining mandatory staff-to-patient ratios in aged-care homes. As I mentioned in a recent submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, there is also a need for aged-care providers to outline how much money they are making and where exactly this revenue is being spent. Looking after the sick and vulnerable must be a priority for all people in this place and more broadly for all tiers of government. We have been entrusted to make decisions on behalf of people to improve their lives. Let us not waste it. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:59): I move:

That debate on this bill be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

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

Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) 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) (15:00): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition in relation to the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I indicate at the outset the opposition has some amendments to the bill. Perhaps now is an opportune time to circulate those amendments.

Opposition amendments circulated by Mr O’DONOHUE pursuant to standing orders.

Mr O’DONOHUE: I am pleased that the circulating of my amendments has caused some excitement in the chamber. That is excellent news, and I hope it is forewarning of support once we get to the committee stage of the bill.

Mr Finn interjected.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Mr Finn. The opposition will not be opposing the bill. As I say, I will talk about my amendments further on in my contribution.

This is yet another omnibus bill that changes a number of acts. While the focus of the bill is the establishment of a County Court Drug Court and the legislative framework around that—I will talk to that in a second—the bill does a number of other things and amends a number of other justice acts. Whilst the opposition does recognise the need for omnibus bills in this chamber to facilitate the legislative agenda of the government, I must say that omnibus bills do create difficulties for the Parliament in that there invariably are aspects of bills that are supported across the chamber by all parties but then there are other aspects of omnibus bills that often are contentious and not supported, and this creates challenges for parties wishing to support elements of a bill but not other elements. That is perhaps not so much of an issue today with this justice bill, this omnibus bill, but the omnibus bill that passed the lower house yesterday is one of those bills which is incredibly contentious—an aspect of it—and should be rethought by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General must talk to and listen to the perspectives of the families of deceased sexual assault victims. She must do that and bring back an amended bill. I will leave that there for this moment. I will come to the Drug Court issues at the end.

This bill amends the Charities Act 1978 to allow the Attorney-General to delegate any of her powers and functions under the act and the regulations. It amends the Limitation of Actions Act 1958. This is something I think that could have been done at the time, but we welcome this change now. The Children Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 was passed in September of that year. The bill enabled survivors of institutional child abuse to apply to the courts to overturn unfair historical compensation agreements entered into before 1 July 2015. During the debate on that bill in 2019 the opposition raised concerns of victims that the reforms did not apply to those who entered into agreements after 1 July 2015 due to the existence of the Ellis defence, which was subsequently abolished on 1 July 2018. This bill will amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to allow courts to set aside settlements entered into between 1 July 2015 and 1 July 2018 if it is reasonable to do so. We welcome that change. We think it was an oversight in the original bill, and we welcome the government recognising that oversight by bringing in this change. This part of the bill will simply deal with barriers which have led to victim-survivors accepting inadequate settlements and releasing the institution from future liability.

Again I congratulate the Parliament for the Betrayal of Trust report, with the committee chaired by Ms Crozier. There was a lot of scepticism at the time when Premier Baillieu requested the Family and Community Development Committee to undertake that work. He was given a supplementary budget of $2 million. The opposition at that time, and Daniel Andrews as opposition leader, mocked it—said it did not have the resources, did not have the capacity, did not have the time. But what we saw is that it was a groundbreaking committee report that led to the ultimate federal royal commission. It has been a seminal piece of work by this Parliament, by a parliamentary committee, that has led to enormous public policy change that is still being seen in this debate today. It is worth noting that and acknowledging that.

The bill also amends the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 to protect the privacy of parties to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017. Again, this is I think perhaps fixing an oversight from that significant legislative change that took place in the last Parliament. The bill’s confidentiality provision will remove the need for VCAT to make suppression orders in relation to VAD act proceedings. I think that is consistent with the intent of the original legislation, although the legislation did not explicitly state that. This will fix that oversight. It has flowed, I understand, from some matters at VCAT, and that is a welcome change.

The bill amends the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 to allow for the appointment of an additional alternative chairperson to the Youth Parole Board and expand eligibility for chair and alternative chair positions to current and former County Court judges and magistrates and to Australian lawyers of at least 10 years standing, consistent with changes that have been made to the role of the chair of the Adult Parole Board of Victoria and other similar bodies. It is with some reluctance that the opposition, and I personally, see these changes. I think it is important, the standing of bodies such as the parole board, the Youth Parole Board and similar organisations, similar quasi-judicial—although they are not; they are creatures of the executive—bodies that make important decisions for the community. But we also recognise the pressure and stress and workload that County Court and Supreme Court judges have and the often significant workloads that former judges have, either as reserve judges or in providing advice to government or chairing other bodies and organisations. So whilst it is a change that is understood, I think it is unfortunate that that change is necessary in the circumstances, because of I think the respect that flows from having a sitting senior judicial officeholder or retired officeholder chairing bodies such as the Youth Parole Board.

Moving to the main element of this bill, and that is the establishment of a new County Court Drug Court division, the bill establishes a new specialised Drug Court division of the County Court that will operate alongside the mainstream criminal court. It will be a pilot that will run for three years, and it will be independently evaluated after two. The government says the County Court Drug Court division will be targeted to the complex needs of offenders with a drug or alcohol dependency. This cohort of offenders are seen to be disadvantaged in the mainstream justice system because they have a higher risk of recidivist and escalating criminal behaviour linked to their dependency, which can result in offenders becoming entrenched in the criminal justice system.

The bill provides for the Drug Court to make a therapeutic drug and alcohol treatment order in respect of an offender who is dependent on drugs or alcohol as an alternative to mainstream sentencing options. Offenders will be eligible for such an order. It will exclude those guilty of sexual or violent offending, including the offences of actual bodily harm, aggravated home invasion or aggravated carjacking, but it will include those guilty of other crimes where the court deems a sentence of no more than four years will be appropriate to be imposed, and a suspended sentence will be given in whole or in part. This obviously causes some concern for the opposition—the notion of a sentence being fully suspended—given that was one of the reforms of the Baillieu-Napthine government, to abolish suspended sentences. But we recognise this as part of a pilot Drug Court program.

Consistent with the Magistrates Court model already in existence, offenders will not be compelled to participate in the Drug Court. Offenders retain the right to plead not guilty and be tried in the mainstream County Court. Only offenders who choose to plead guilty and agree in writing to be part of the program are eligible for a potential order. The offender will need to satisfy the court on balance of probabilities that they are dependent on drugs and/or alcohol and that that dependency contributed to the commission of the offence. That sometimes can be a difficult thing to establish in the course of offending, but that will be a matter for the court to determine.

The court may require an offender to provide certain medical or personal information—that is, to undertake alcohol or drug tests in the course of treatment and supervision—attend the Drug Court or periodically report to specific corrections agencies during the period of the order, and it may restrict the offender from leaving Victoria without permission while subject to an order. The purpose of the order is to facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender by providing a judicially supervised, therapeutically orientated integrated drug and alcohol treatment and supervision regime; take account of the offender’s drug and alcohol dependency; reduce the level of criminality associated with drug or alcohol dependency; and reduce the offender’s health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency. The division will have the power to impose an order of up to four years in length, compared to only two years in the Magistrates Court.

When I had the privilege of being the Minister for Corrections and Minister for Crime Prevention I spent a day with Magistrate Tony Parsons at the Dandenong Drug Court, and the thing that struck me with Magistrate Parsons was his passion for addressing recidivism and his passion for seeing offenders succeed on the program journey that they were on. So I recognise that the program comes from good intentions, and that has been I think reflected in some of the evidence that I have seen. For example, when the coalition was in government there was a review conducted by then ministers Wooldridge and Clark which supported the notion that recidivism is reduced amongst those who participate in the Magistrates Drug Court.

Now, I think that needs to be seen in the context that those participants who are in the Drug Court are voluntarily engaged in the program. They are pleading guilty, and therefore they have got already some recognition of their offending and some recognition that they need to change their ways. I suppose the question is how much the Drug Court itself helps those who are minded to address the causes of their offending behaviour to actually reduce offending once they have completed the program. Nonetheless, there is a very, very alarming rise in recidivism rates under this government. They are very concerning numbers: historically in the 30s through the Bracks and Brumby period—lower 30s; with parole changes implemented by the coalition government, into the mid-level 30s; now well and truly 40s towards 50 per cent recidivism rate for offenders who are released from jail, back in jail or reoffending within two years—alarming recidivism numbers.

Perhaps that is why the previous corrections minister was forced to purchase temporary accommodation and put them in a number of prisons across Victoria, because they simply have not been able to manage the prisoner population and they have got this revolving door of offenders coming in and out. Of two prisoners released from prison today in Victoria one will be back behind bars within two years on average under this government—an indictment on their record and their capacity to rehabilitate offenders in prison.

As my colleague Mr Southwick, the member for Caulfield in the other place, has remarked in the media and elsewhere and in Parliament early in the week, it is unbelievable that there are more drugs being caught in in prison in recent months even though the prisons have been shut to visitors. There is no-one actually allowed in, no visitors allowed in to bring the contraband in, but somehow it is getting smuggled in. Perhaps this is another thing that IBAC should look at if the government bothers to give it the resources it needs, how drugs are getting—

Members interjecting.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Well, I see some mocking from the government about resourcing the IBAC, resourcing the anti-corruption commission—the anti-corruption commission that John Brumby refused to create. It took the Baillieu government to establish the anti-corruption commission that the Labor Party would not create.

Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, this is about a bill introducing and talking about a Drug Court and introducing trials and talking about the benefits that these programs can bring. Talking that IBAC is in no way relevant to this bill, and I ask that Mr O’Donohue direct his comments and confine them to the point of the bill. You might have waited until I sat down, Mr Finn.

Mr Finn: I do not believe in wasting time. On the point of order, Acting President, Mr O’Donohue is clearly making a passing reference to the IBAC and the situation with regard to the area that relates to this bill. I mean, for members of the government to be carrying on like this is quite ridiculous, particularly this late on a Friday afternoon. It is quite ridiculous. You should go to the pub—go on.

Ms Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Acting President, Mr Finn is actually now going into debating the merits of the motion rather than talking about what I had to say in trying to say that there was a relevant point of order, so I would ask that you dismiss the objection to the point of order.

Dr Bach: Further to the point of order, Acting President, as Ms Terpstra noted at the commencement of her remarks, this is a bill regarding the reduction of recidivism. Now, Mr O’Donohue was talking about some of the problems that occur when indeed you do not reduce recidivism.

Ms Terpstra interjected.

Dr Bach: Well, excuse me, hang on. Hang about.

Ms Terpstra: There is no point of order.

Dr Bach: On the point of order, my point on Ms Terpstra’s—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Order! Let Dr Bach speak, please.

Dr Bach: Thank you so much. My point on Ms Terpstra’s point of order is that in fact Mr O’Donohue is being entirely relevant to the bill. To remark upon this government’s abject failure to reduce recidivism and the consequences of that is entirely relevant to the bill. It relates to the very first point that Ms Terpstra made in her point of order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): Actually, Mr O’Donohue was talking about a law enforcement agency regarding a possible problem with drugs getting into the prisons. It is a different one, but still the issue is the same. I will not uphold the point of order, but if we can just get back on with the bill.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you for your ruling, Acting President. So as Dr Bach was saying, these issues are interrelated. The issue of recidivism is tied to the flood of drugs in our prisons, which is tied to the government trying to find alternative ways to tackle the ballooning recidivism numbers that are driving crime in Victoria. IBAC, as an agency under the auspices of the Attorney-General, is a justice body tied as part of the justice system under the responsibility, if you look at the general order, of the Attorney-General of Victoria. It was changed from the Special Minister of State to the Attorney-General by Daniel Andrews under the general order. So the general order might be some good bedtime reading for some of the government members to refresh themselves on which minister has responsibility for which agencies and how those agencies interact with the justice system.

The issue of recidivism is a real one. The growth in recidivism under this government is alarming. The Drug Court at the magistrates level has evidence to prove it has been effective. We can have debates about how effective and the cohort that it responds to, but there is some evidence that it has been effective in helping to address recidivism. The policy notion that the government is putting forward in this bill to expand that to the County Court is understood by the opposition, but it does raise concerns with us because of the very nature of it going to the County Court where more serious crimes are dealt with. It is not the lower level offending that is dealt with in the Magistrates Court, and therefore the criminality is of a more serious nature and the harm against the community is of a more serious nature, so the opposition has some concerns about the operation in that higher jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that, given the ballooning recidivism under this government, which is driving criminality and the increase in crime under Labor, we will not oppose the legislation.

We are concerned, though, that whilst sex offenders and violent offenders have been excluded from the operation of the proposed scheme, it does not exclude those charged with or who plead guilty to drug manufacture, drug supply, drug-dealing or drug-trafficking offences. We believe that those who have profited from the trafficking of drugs and who have profited from drug dealing, from supplying and from manufacturing drugs should not be included in this cohort. The cohort should be restricted to drug users who plead guilty and who show a capacity to tackle the cause of their offending behaviour—namely, drug and alcohol abuse. It should not be open to drug traffickers—peddlers of misery, basically. That is why my amendments seek to remove those classes of offences and to restrict the cohort to a narrow potential cohort. Given the numbers that are anticipated in the program, that should not impact on the operation of the program anyway. As I say, peddlers of misery—drug dealers and drug traffickers—should not be part of this program, in our view.

The only other thing of consequence that I wish to note is that the Magistrates Court program has been in existence now for a long time. It has been expanded from Dandenong to Melbourne, and now it is in regional Victoria. I congratulate the passion of Magistrate Tony Parsons, who pioneered this program and has driven it for years and years, and his personal quest to tackle reoffending. But it is of concern that the cost per offender of this program is so significant. For example, in 2017 when the Melbourne Drug Court was established funding of $32 million was provided with capacity for 170 offenders, so the estimated cost per offender was $188 000—a very significant cost. Now, $35 million in funding was announced for the expansion of the Drug Court program to Ballarat and Shepparton and a pilot for the County Court, with an estimated 120 additional offenders—a cost per offender marching up towards $300 000, a very significant cost.

We appreciate the cost of incarceration is also very high and that people in prison under Labor are recommitting crimes at an alarming, rapidly growing rate, but these costs for offenders who are remaining in the community are very, very high, and there has been no explanation of that from the government, particularly that significant increase between 2017 and now, just a few years on, when the cost per offender has gone up so significantly. I think that is something which the government needs to address with subsequent speakers or by the minister in summation, otherwise we can pursue that issue in the committee stage when we consider my amendments at that later juncture. The opposition will not oppose this bill, but we will be moving amendments to restrict the cohort of offenders eligible for this program.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:25): I rise to make a contribution in regard to this bill. In doing so, what I will say is that obviously it is a government bill and we support this bill, but we do not support the amendments as foreshadowed by Mr O’Donohue. What I want to do is talk a little bit about why these reforms are important and how it is actually helping people turn their lives around, because there are some very interesting case studies, which I will read onto the record, which actually provide positive, good-news stories. It is actually good to look at the good stories that come out of these circumstances, because often what we are dealing with are issues around human tragedy. Often what we see is that people who are impacted by drug or alcohol issues or addictions have trauma in their background. They might have come from homes where there has been family violence, where there has been neglect and where they have been exposed to drugs and alcohol throughout the early years and their upbringing. The stories that I have read around this bill indicate that some people have been exposed to substances like alcohol or drugs from the time they were either 10 years old or 13 years old, and that is shocking to hear. That is sad to hear.

Of course when you are dealing with people like that, it is very obvious and clear that they have a level of dysfunction or trauma in their background. The bottom line is you cannot punish trauma away. In fact you compound it when you punish people. It is not the answer. These reforms are important because they actually throw a lifeline to people who might otherwise languish in jail for inordinate periods of time. It throws them a lifeline to get them back on track and to repair their lives. And it is not just their own lives; these are people who have either come from broken families themselves or had breaks with their family connections because of their offending. It provides them with an opportunity to repair those family connections where possible. It provides them with an opportunity to reconnect with their community, with their loved ones, and to rehabilitate themselves to perhaps overcome their addiction and to even participate in the world of work where that is possible, because there is dignity in work.

Addiction, some people may not realise or understand, can be a lifelong problem. People will often come in and out of addiction. It is not a linear thing where you get some help and you just move along. It is complex; it is nuanced to the individuals that are afflicted by it. As I said, you cannot punish addiction away. To simply punish people who have been subject to trauma is actually a cruel punishment in and of itself. It does nothing and it does not work.

It is pleasing to hear that the opposition will not be opposing the bill. It is good to see that there is some level of bipartisanship on this, but again we will not be supporting the amendments as foreshadowed by Mr O’Donohue. In creating a pilot County Court Drug Court, this bill has extremely strict eligibility requirements, and these include: an offender must plead guilty, sexual and violent offending is excluded; it only applies where a sentence of four years imprisonment or less would be appropriate; and an offender must satisfy the court that they are dependent on drugs and/or alcohol and that this dependency has contributed to their offending. That just deals with the reasoning behind why we are opposing the amendments.

I might just take a moment to read into the record this case study. John—of course this is not his real name; it is a pseudonym, obviously, to protect his identity—a 29-year-old male, had spent most of his life with a drug addiction after becoming friends with an antisocial peer group at a young age. Over the years John found himself in custody more times than he could remember. John identified drug abuse as the primary reason for his relationship breakdown with his ex-partner and children, his history of offending and his experience of homelessness and feeling totally isolated. Finally he spoke with a supportive friend who told him about a program that could help him with his drug use and change his life. John joined the Drug Court program and commenced a drug treatment order, as a person who felt he had lost everything.

After 15 years of heavy polydrug use, including ice and heroin, John thought he had exhausted all avenues to stop his drug use and did not know where to turn for help. The Drug Court team was able to work with John immediately to design a tailored treatment plan, building on his strengths and his motivation. The Drug Court team commenced working with John to provide a range of wraparound supports to facilitate his treatment and rehabilitation. Whilst on the order, John engaged with the Drug Court housing service and was able to successfully acquire transitional housing with an aim to establish secure and stable accommodation. John was excited to have a place that his children could call home. The Drug Court team provided John with the opportunity and encouragement to engage in intensive counselling through engagement with the Drug Court team’s alcohol and drug counsellors, and he was able to access and to attend a residential withdrawal unit. Together with drug screens and judicial supervision, John achieved abstinence from all drugs and finally felt that the good things in his life and his hopes for the future had returned.

With the supports and treatments of the Drug Court team, John was accountable for his future, rebuilt relationships with his family and friends and was able to develop a plan to stay clean and to stick to it. The supports of the Drug Court assisted John to turn his life around, and eventually he was able to return to full-time work and obtain employment as a labourer for the first time in almost a decade. John’s positive work with the Drug Court team further enabled him to work with child and family services in a supported way, resulting in him gaining the full-time care of his children. John’s commitment saw him graduate early from the Drug Court program, and the Drug Court magistrate noted John’s openness and courage to address his serious drug issues. John responded with optimism for the future, and these sentiments were echoed by his proud family, particularly his parents, who described that through the Drug Court they had finally gotten their son back. John attributed his success to access to intensive supports and treatment and the persistence and encouragement of the Drug Court team, and he continues to stay in touch as an informal mentor.

That is a success story. By any stretch and by any sense of imagination, that is a success story. We want to see more stories like that. We want to see more people being able to turn their lives around, to connect with their family. The fact that he has lived experience makes him a fantastic addition to the Drug Court team—someone who has been in the depths of desperation and despair as a consequence of succumbing to addiction, and as I said earlier, addiction is a lifelong struggle for some people. It is not easy to overcome, but we should not turn our backs on these people, especially when people are open, asking for help and are prepared to accept and acknowledge their own shortcomings and problems in regard to their addictions. We should never give up on people who are prepared to do the hard work and, in preparing to do that hard work, then are able to be fully rehabilitated. This is not only a benefit for John; it is also a benefit for his family and for his children. The children have their father back, and he is able to contribute to their lives in a meaningful way.

I might also talk about Neil. Neil is from the City of Greater Dandenong. Neil reported having a tumultuous upbringing which featured violence and alcoholism within the home. He was introduced to alcohol at the age of 10, and he began drinking on a regular basis soon after. By the age of 13 Neil had progressed to the abuse of amphetamines, benzodiazepines and heroin. Neil’s first contact with the criminal justice system was at the age of 12. He was arrested for shop theft and causing a public nuisance. By the time Neil applied for a drug treatment order he had been in and out of custody multiple times for offences he had committed whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as a means of attaining the drugs of dependence. In addition to the childhood trauma and severe substance dependence, Neil also presented with significant issues of anxiety and depression, and I might say that oftentimes people who are in the grips of a substance abuse problem are doing so because they are self-medicating. They may be doing so as well because they are managing mental health challenges, so we cannot look at this as a way of stigmatising or categorising everybody in the same way. Some of these addictions are complex, and some of the problems that people suffer are complex. We need nuanced, new and appropriate solutions to help them recover.

Neil was granted an opportunity to participate in the drug treatment order and shortly thereafter commenced attending for drug testing three times per week and engaged in individual appointments with the Drug Court’s multidisciplinary team members. At first Neil found it difficult to keep up with these requirements. He was a new father and was going through custody applications with the Department of Health and Human Services. His life was in the ditch. The wheels fell off quickly into the first two months, and Neil’s addiction to heroin would not let him go. He spent two periods of 14 days in custody on sanctions as a result of the chaos he was experiencing. However, with the ongoing tailored and intensive support of the Drug Court magistrate and the team, Neil was able to recommence attending regular individual alcohol and drug counselling sessions. He was admitted to a detoxification unit to stabilise himself before stopping his substance use and achieving abstinence. Neil was able to work with a Drug Court housing worker to secure permanent and safe housing and was able to recommence repairing broken relationships with family and positive peers.

Engagement and access to Drug Court supports and treatment helped Neil to become stronger, happier and healthier. These changes resulted in Neil being granted sole custody of his child within 12 months of commencing his order. Neil’s determination and commitment to address his drug use and ongoing support from the Drug Court team encouraged him to enrol in a TAFE course with the aim to get him back into the workforce. I am happy to report that Neil graduated from the Drug Court program free from offending and drug use. Neil achieved his longest period of abstinence since he was first arrested at the age of 12. That is a significant and resounding success story. Again, you can see the struggles that people have. This is not an easy situation.

There is another case study which I might leave for other speakers to go through, but the success stories are many and they are worthy of being told. They must be told because we cannot just give up on people. We cannot just consign people by saying, ‘You’re no longer worth it and you belong to rot in jail’. Jail is not going to help those people. These programs, not only are they producing real success stories but in terms of savings to justice programs down the track, if we can get people these sorts of interventions earlier on, then we might have a better chance of keeping them out of the justice system on a longer term basis.

Because I know I have 3 or so minutes on the clock I might just quickly talk about the Drug Court program that has been operating in the Dandenong Magistrates Court since 2002. The success story I just talked about was a person who found his way to the Dandenong Magistrates Court through that program, but also in 2017 a further Drug Court was established at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. This bill will establish a pilot for the Drug Court to operate for three years in the County Court, and the pilot will support up to 60 people. The County Court deals with more serious offending. However, this bill restricts the eligibility for Drug Court to only apply to cases where the offending is not sexual or violent against a person. The bill will allow the County Court to make a drug and alcohol treatment order for a person sentenced for a period of up to four years. This is an intensive order involving treatment and supervision, which requires a person to address their drug addiction and the root causes of their offending.

There is serious and hard work that goes into addressing drug offending and also the emotional or psychological consequences that people find themselves in, and that is part of the reason why they often turn to drugs—because they want to cope and they want to numb the pain. So anybody who commits to this program needs to be recognised and commended for their serious commitment, because turning up for drug treatment, drug screening and various other parts of the program does indeed require a real commitment.

What we know about drug and alcohol treatment orders is that they are more successful in preventing recidivism among offenders. An evaluation of the Drug Court program by KPMG in 2014 found a 23 per cent reduction in reoffending—that is a fantastic statistic; a 23 per cent reduction in reoffending—over the first 12 months post completion and a 29 per cent reduction in reoffending over 24 months post the treatment order completion. Compared to the control group there was a reduction in the seriousness of offences, including a 90 per cent reduction in trafficking offences and a 54 per cent reduction in violence with weapons. We know that people often turn to crime to finance their addictions. So that is a fantastic statistic, and what we can see is that these types of interventions that are tailored to addressing the root causes or underlying reasons why people turn to addictions are critical and they are delivering real results. It is simple: these Drug Courts make us safer. The Andrews Labor government is tough on crime but it is also smart on crime. We are willing to invest in the strategies that reduce crime to make the community safer.

I might leave my contribution there. There is plenty of other material for other speakers to speak to in regard to this bill. But as I said at the beginning of my contribution, I commend this bill to the house, but we will not be supporting the amendments proposed by Mr O’Donohue.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15:40): As I rise to speak on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) Bill 2020, I can confirm that Mr Grimley and I will be supporting this bill. It has a number of different elements to it. Particularly importantly for us, it includes the provision of some new avenues of recourse in relation to a group of previously prohibited forms of legal action relating to child abuse. These changes relate to legal actions under section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958. Previously these actions could apply only in respect of offences of sexual abuse up to 1 July 2015. This bill now extends that date to 1 July 2018 in order to make this specific area of law consistent with the application of the Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018.

We are supportive of these changes, and similarly we endorse the parts of the bill that provide for the introduction of new confidentiality provisions in cases heard at VCAT under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017. Most comprehensively of all, the bill makes the necessary legislative changes to establish a Drug Court division of the County Court on a pilot basis for three years. In Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party we believe that increasingly there is a very important role for Drug Courts to fulfil in addressing the incidence of drug abuse in Victoria. It is sad to have to say this, but drug addictions and dependencies continue to mount across our society and accordingly continue to be insidious and monumental problems for Victoria. Not only does the proliferation of illicit drugs ruin so many lives among those who either traffic or consume these substances, but its ripple effects impact on far too many other Victorians as well.

Regrettably it is a major contributing factor to almost all of the worst criminal and social problems in contemporary Victorian society. In fact in the case of methamphetamines, especially ice, their use has increased so significantly that this has resulted in many more violent forms of offending than had typically been seen previously. In a purely justice-related context alone, it is possible to trace the majority of serious crimes in Victoria in recent decades straight back to drug use by the offender. I think it was Ms Kilkenny, the member for Carrum in the lower house, who confirmed that among Victoria’s current prison populations nearly two-thirds of them are drug users. We also know and understand the traditionally alarmingly high rates of recidivism amongst this cohort and the associated costs, not just financially, of those trends to our society at large. Just think for a little while about that two-thirds figure in particular—it is an absolutely shocking reality. Given that background, we clearly do need to find and pursue more meaningful and effective solutions to these issues.

I might add too that, as I often say in this place, it is imperative that we look more closely at doing everything we can as a society in the form of early intervention to educate people and to prevent them participating in this insidious, addictive behaviour. As Ms Terpstra alluded to in her speech, there are many people who have suffered trauma who use drugs and take part in drug taking to numb themselves and to try and hide from that trauma that they have experienced. If we work from the premise that the proposal at the heart of this bill for the pilot of the Drug Court within the County Court does have the capacity to improve the trajectory of many people’s lives, then that aim is clearly worthy of support. Indeed it was only a few months ago, just before the advent of COVID-19 in Victoria, that I made a visit in my capacity as an MP to the Drug Court at Shepparton. Through it I especially gained a closer and better understanding of the past and current work of the court and its potential impact in changing outcomes for many people who come before it.

A wealth of both practical evidence and literature do indicate that Drug Courts typically have greater potency in many cases in addressing the full gamut of issues associated with drug-related offending than the use in isolation of standard criminal justice approaches. That is not to imply that there is not a significant number of people on whom Drug Courts continue to have little or no positive effect. However, there is considerable data globally to show that they have demonstrated impacts in improving the outlook, health and wellbeing of those concerned and, in the process, reducing further offending. Often, including within Victoria, there are substantial decreases in the subsequent rate and severity of offending among those who appear before Drug Courts. Broadly speaking, the operation of Drug Courts in Victoria is typically focused on a particular group of individuals whose criminal behaviour and connection with substance abuse is usually well entrenched and stretches back over a number of years. A high proportion of them have already experienced multiple terms of imprisonment. They therefore constitute a group who would otherwise continue to place considerable pressure on frontline services and resourcing within the state’s justice system if drug treatment orders did not provide the alternative option of enabling them to avoid what might have been another custodial sentence per se and also to submit to mandatory assistance and treatment. Generally these orders do so in a way that is more cost-effective than would be the case if this group of offenders was instead incarcerated again.

I do not propose in this speech to work my way through a series of the very many detailed statistics that exist in this field; many people have already done that in other speeches on this bill, especially in relation to the KPMG evaluation of 2014 on the functioning of Victoria’s Drug Courts. I am trying to be very mindful that there are other speakers who would really like to speak on this bill, so I am going to take out a few other important excerpts and points of my speech. I might move on to the point that if we are going to have more Drug Courts then I dare say they also need to be accompanied by more drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities. That is especially true in my electorate, where so many of our cities and towns are unfortunately significantly affected by the proliferation of illicit drugs.

Separately I have spoken in more detail in Parliament this week about the importance of enhancing controls over the levels of contraband entering our Victorian prisons, thereby reducing the prospect that those who are incarcerated will maintain drug addictions and dependencies even whilst they are inside the state’s correctional facilities. As legislators and as courts we can have all the best intentions in the world; however, they mean nothing if they are not followed through practically. Time and time again we see many offenders who are released on community correction orders, and one of those orders may be that they are mandated to attend a rehabilitation centre. In rural and regional areas that can be very difficult. The wait times are extensive and often the rehabilitation process is not completed.

I should also stress that there are many incredible individuals and organisations in Victoria already undertaking work to each of these ends to assist those rehabilitation processes. However, in many cases they need to be better resourced and supported. Truly turning around the lives of those abusing drugs is clearly contingent on many different forms of action. Amongst those are painstaking and dedicated individual case managers. While a Drug Court is not a panacea to overcoming drug addiction, we need to ensure that we have a completely holistic approach to how our Drug Courts will work and that case management not only supports those people to attend drug rehabilitation facilities but ensures that those available case managers are there upon release, because that is often when we see drug-addicted offenders coming back into the community and re-engaging with the people they previously socialised with, therefore often regaining that drug addiction.

I am just very mindful of trying to finish. I will say that unfortunately we will not be supporting the opposition’s amendments, and I refer in that context particularly to those elements of clause 12 that legislate that in dealing with any offender the Drug Court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person is dependent on drugs or alcohol and that this dependency contributed to the commission of the offence. There is another part of the clause that is also already specific: that the court cannot deal with any other matter that would otherwise ordinarily attract a term of imprisonment of more than four years. In conclusion, Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party supports this bill.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15:50): I am really pleased to join the debate on the Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) Bill 2020. I have enjoyed the debate immensely. It is an important piece of legislation. I thought, Ms Maxwell, that so many of the comments that you made were apt. My friend in Eastern Metropolitan Region Ms Terpstra has left the chamber, but again I thought she made numerous excellent points about the importance of diversion and how we can do far better in this place.

It is engaging in neither pointscoring nor politics to point out the simple fact that, sadly, we have seen rates of recidivism in Victoria balloon over recent years. It is a fact that I know troubles many members opposite. It troubles me deeply too. I have had the privilege of working in this broad space in the past—in youth justice, child protection and drugs and alcohol. I chose to do my doctoral studies in justice reform, with a particular focus on recidivism and measures to seek to reduce recidivism—and it is devilishly difficult to seek to reduce recidivism, but it must be such a focus of ours here in this place. I have spoken on a number of occasions about how I think we need to see more diversion programs, and so for that reason I am very pleased that we are debating a bill today that contains a number of elements—and that is something Mr O’Donohue noted. I want to focus in particular on the issue of Drug Courts. Like Mr O’Donohue I have had the opportunity in the past to spend time at the Dandenong Drug Court, and I think the Dandenong Drug Court is fantastic. It is not a panacea, as Ms Maxwell said, and that sort of diversionary program is not appropriate for everybody. But it is a really good innovation, and I am pleased to see that now and not before time the government is looking at expanding our Drug Court program.

Ms Terpstra in her contribution talked about the impact of trauma and then the impact of stigma, and I agree with her completely. A County Court Drug Court I hope will aid those who have fallen into what is often pejoratively called the ‘criminal class’ and therefore are faced with significant stigma in the community and because of the trauma that they have experienced—a loss of opportunities as a result—find it very easy to continue down a pathway of further criminality and further drug use. The two are deeply interconnected, as we have discussed.

In Victoria we actually have a strong history of justice initiatives that aim—sometimes with success, sometimes with limited success—to reduce recidivism and to protect vulnerable Victorians. My very strong view—and I have expressed this view on a number of occasions in my short time here with you, Acting President Bourman—is that there are some people whose criminal acts are so egregious that they are deserving of a long custodial sentence. Punishment is a legitimate objective of any criminal justice system, as is deterrence. Specific criminal lists, restorative justice practices and community correction orders are features of our system for several valid reasons—to mitigate the chance of reoffending and to avoid the damage of a custodial sentence, to name just two.

So, for my part, as I have said before, I would like to see serious offenders, violent offenders and sexual offenders in Victoria receive on average significantly lengthier sentences. I would also like to see, and this was a key feature of Ms Terpstra’s speech, people whose offending is on the lower end of the scale and people whose offending is linked deeply to trauma receive sentences into diversionary programs like this, which can be run very well and have very good results—and can be run poorly and have less good results.

A great example of this sort of program is the assessment and referral court list of the Magistrates Court. Their ARC is a successful diversionary program that assists those with mental or cognitive impairments for crimes listed at the Melbourne Magistrates Court that are not of a serious violent nature or a serious sexual nature. I refer to this particular court list in an effort to bolster the points made by earlier speakers regarding the potential for programs like this to yield good results. A 2014 review of the ARC list program found that clients were, and I quote, ‘empowered’ by their involvement. Oftentimes those people who find themselves spiralling downwards into an abyss of drug use and criminality feel deeply, deeply disempowered. The review also said, and I quote, that goal setting with ongoing support helped lead to an overall reduced ‘likelihood of reoffending’. I do not doubt that those opposite feel just as deeply as those on this side of the house that we cannot continue to see increasing rates of reoffending here in Victoria, for a whole range of reasons. One certainly is that that is such a bad outcome for those individuals who are engaged in sometimes criminal activity that we would say is at the lower end of the spectrum.

The program focused on support for those with mental and cognitive limitations. We have heard in this debate already that of course mental health, mental ill health in particular, is inextricably linked to drug and alcohol abuse, which is oftentimes so inextricably linked to violence and to further criminality. The comparison that I am seeking to draw here is that this list that we are discussing today will focus on those with addiction and long-term dependence who need programs that also empower them to take control back of their lives, to recover and to support them to set objectives for themselves, and outcomes, in an effort to seek, at a minimum, a reduction of criminal behaviour, and hopefully—and this is possible when we look at some of the really well run programs—a total cessation of criminal activity. Programs such as these can be really effective, and so, as I have said before in this place and I continue to say it, we should consider them in all appropriate circumstances—I say ‘appropriate’.

The County Court Drug Court and the ARC list share similarities in that they cannot be—they will not be able to be, in the case before the house today—utilised when the offender has committed serious or violent offences or offences involving sexual assault. This comes back to my previous point—that there are some people who, in my very, very strong view, require a custodial sentence to protect the community and to rightly punish them for their actions. The community roundly expects that those who commit serious violent offences or sexual offences will be properly punished and removed from the community to keep us safe.

Severity, in my mind, is key here. Minor drug crimes, like those of small quantity possession, use or attempted use of a drug of dependence, are very damaging to the person but may not be representative of broader harm to the community. More serious drug crimes, in the form of small-to-large-scale trafficking, cultivation or production, perpetuate and support an invasive and destructive plague on our society. That is why it is crucial that this new Drug Court—if indeed this bill passes the house, as I hope it will—is engaged in addressing the former class of offence and not the latter. To that end, I wholeheartedly support the propositions put by Mr O’Donohue and the amendments moved in his name. While the Magistrates Court may have similar diversionary powers, the County Court regularly deals with more serious crimes. So in my view it really needs to be made crystal clear that those crimes would still be dealt with with appropriate rigour and appropriate harshness.

My penultimate point is regarding a similar program in New South Wales. The Drug Court in New South Wales has been operating since the turn of the century and has referred parties from the local and district courts. (Time expired)

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Adjournment

Drug rehabilitation programs

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:00): My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Mental Health. Yesterday’s release of the Department of Health and Human Services annual report for 2019–20 shows just how difficult the COVID-19 pandemic has been for individuals attempting to access drug services. Importantly, as Victoria continues to live with the presence of COVID-19 in our community, the Andrews Labor government must ensure that these services are available to protect the wellbeing of all Victorians.

The annual report shows a concerning increase in the length of time for screening of clients. In 2018–19 this wait time was on average 5.95 days. Alarmingly, as indicated in yesterday’s report, the average wait time for 2019–20 almost doubled to 11.7 days. That means Victorians suffering from severe drug-related mental health issues are waiting almost a week longer than last year to gain access to these services, not to mention that this delay is significantly longer than your own department’s targets—the government’s own targets, not yours, Acting President Bourman. I know you like targets.

Members interjecting.

Ms CROZIER: This is a very serious issue so I need to return to my adjournment matter. The report shows a concerning drop in the number of residential and community drug services. The department expected in 2019–20 to deliver 76 800 residential services and 90 300 community-based services. However, they fell short of these targets, delivering 8500 fewer residential services and 7200 fewer community-based services. The report also noted an additional 2.7 million syringes were distributed above the department’s target, which was a 12 per cent increase on the previous financial year. It is concerning that this may indicate an uptake in drug use as a result of individuals not being able to access rehabilitation services.

Therefore the action I seek is that the minister explain this increase in the distribution of syringes to ensure that Victorians who need access to drug services—especially in the context of the presence of lockdown and where we have been over the last eight or so months with COVID in place and the huge restrictions it has placed on everyone—and who are seeking that very important access to drug services have been able to get it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Bourman): I call Ms Watt, and I might just make note that this is her first contribution.

Working for Victoria

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (16:03): The matter I wish to raise today is for the attention of the Minister for Employment. The Northern Metropolitan Region has been profoundly impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, especially vulnerable cohorts seeking employment. As members may know, before coming to this place I focused my efforts on securing employment opportunities for young people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds. I understand that through the Working for Victoria program opportunities may have been created for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, many of which are located in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. Therefore the action that I seek today is to be provided with a briefing on how the Working for Victoria program is supporting Aboriginal community-controlled organisations during this difficult time.

Family violence services funding

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16:04): My adjournment matter is for the Treasurer. I should probably preface it by apologising to him and his advisers. I imagine that requests to them for funding in this year’s state budget are probably piling up exponentially at the moment, and yet here I am about to submit another one to them this evening. That said, it relates to an initiative that really is in need of funding in my view. This is one of those rare cases of a program that has the potential, if sufficiently further resourced, to deliver multifaceted ongoing savings in a number of other areas of the budget as well. Namely, I am talking about the adolescent family violence program. More directly, I am requesting that the program now be expanded and sufficiently funded to be delivered on a statewide basis.

I should add that recommendation 123 of the report of the Royal Commission into Family Violence very specifically calls for the realisation of this outcome. Until now the program, which focuses on providing specialised responses to specific issues affecting young Victorians who use violence in the home and/or against another member of their family, has been implemented only in a selection of areas within the state. Throughout its existence, at least from my understanding of the views of many of the participants and other stakeholders in the program and through my discussion with Minister Williams about it, it has nevertheless been producing some consistently outstanding results. Indeed according to the Victorian government website that tracks the progress of the implementation of the royal commission recommendations, the recently completed formal evaluation of the program found that it led to the following key outcomes, and I quote:

• young people’s understanding and management of their behaviour improved

• parents had increased confidence in managing young people’s behaviour

• the nature and frequency of violence and aggression reduced

• education, work and health outcomes for young people improved

The value of these kinds of results should not be underplayed. The minimisation of adolescent violence is tremendously significant in numerous respects, not least in substantially reducing current and future financial burdens on Victoria’s justice and health systems as well as the state’s economy more broadly. I have given this background; the action I seek from the Treasurer is that he indicates whether and when he will supply the urgently needed additional funding to ensure the full implementation of recommendation 123 of the Royal Commission into Family Violence.

Barry Road intersections, Campbellfield

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (16:07): My adjournment matter today is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it concerns the intersection of Barry Road and the Hume Highway in Campbellfield and the traffic light intersections running west from the Hume Highway along Barry Road in wonderful Melbourne’s north. Every morning Campbellfield residents experience choked roads and frustration as the traffic is banked up. Residents have told me that it is already a nightmare trying to get to work on time in the morning peak hour. Similarly, especially in the evenings, trying to get home to their families is very difficult as well. The action I seek is for the minister to ask the Department of Transport to investigate the traffic light sequencing at the intersection of Barry Road and Hume Highway in Campbellfield and at the same time the traffic light intersections flowing west from the Hume Highway along Barry Road so that my residents can spend less time in traffic and more time with their families.

Library funding

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:08): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Local Government, and the action that I seek is for the state government to support an updated budget submission provided by the Libraries Change Lives campaign and Public Libraries Victoria. Libraries are a vital resource across the region, both in person and digitally. The sector has played a highly significant role in supporting us through the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so into the COVID norm. Unfortunately the investment in services is not in line with population growth nor in line with the benefits they provide for Victorian communities. On review it is unclear to me why, given an independent report by SGS Economics and Planning for the State Library Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria network demonstrated how investment in libraries has positive results. Economically, every dollar invested in Victorian public libraries generates $4.30 of benefits to local communities.

During the pandemic, although physically closed, my community library services have not sat on their hands. Instead they have focused on delivery of critical services and shown an active willingness to support the community’s recovery. Victorian public libraries experienced a 51 per cent increase in downloads of e-resources in April 2020 compared with the previous COVID-19 figures. Members accessed ebooks, e-magazines, audiobooks and films. Councils across the Western Metropolitan Region have contacted my office requiring support for the funding bid to ensure that their libraries can continue their positive impact on our local communities.

I would like to highlight just a few of their activities and milestones. Maribyrnong’s library saw a 172 per cent increase in access to free training courses via LinkedIn in April 2020 compared to March 2020. Courses included computer programming, website development, manufacturing and management. Wyndham council are supporting jobseekers and providing one-on-one help online on how to write résumés and how to answer questions in interviews over the internet. Hobsons Bay reported that in the past financial year more than 470 000 people visited their libraries, equating to almost five visits per resident. (Time expired)

COVID-19

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (16:11): My adjournment this afternoon is for the attention of the Premier. I have received an email from Caterina from Moonee Ponds. She wrote:

I was supposed to be married on May 2nd but due to COVID and the world suffering through this pandemic this could not happen. I myself have been effected by COVID. My family lost our grandmother on July 31st this year. The whole point of having a wedding was to have our grandparents there and because of COVID I am unable to have this. I have seen first hand how quickly this can take over someone and have them pass away so quickly.

I saw grandmother one last time before the hospital was shut down and no one could see her and she passed away by herself, at this last visit she told me how she was going to get a beautiful outfit to wear at my wedding and she couldn’t wait to be there. Even though my family has suffered so much my wedding will be a time for my family and I to gather to not only celebrate my wedding but also my grandmother as we did not get to do so at the time of her passing.

We as brides are asking that we be given some sort of map that is realistic. This pandemic has taken so much from so many people. Allow us to celebrate in a “COVID SAFE” way. So many of us are suffering mentally allow us to have some joy in our lives.

I hope you hear me.

I think Caterina is in a situation that many, many brides are facing this year. It is a dreadful situation for many of them, and clearly it is having an impact on so many people in that position. So I am asking the Premier to not just hear Caterina; I am asking him to act on what Caterina has requested. I am asking him to allow Caterina and those like her to be married in the way that they desire.

Djab Wurrung cultural heritage

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:13): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. According to media reports at least 50 protesters from the Djab Wurrung Heritage Protection Embassy were arrested on Monday and Tuesday of this week. They had been protesting the removal of trees at the site of a highway upgrade. When we were debating the passing of the state-of-emergency extension legislation the Liberal Democrats expressed our concern that it may infringe on the human right to peaceful assembly. My request for action from the police minister is to provide a list of any emergency powers that were used during this operation on Monday and Tuesday of this week.

COVID-19

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:14): I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery related to the plight of the general aviation industry in Victoria. I have received representations from a number of operators in that industry over the last months and weeks in particular regarding the situation it finds itself in following the prolonged shutdown over the last three months. The aviation industry generally in Australia, particularly at the air transport level, has received a range of support from the commonwealth government focused at airline level and regional airline level. However, the section of the industry below that, the general aviation level, which provides pilot training, maintenance, flight simulator centres et cetera—the support services and the pathway flowing to the airlines—has largely been overlooked. That has been exacerbated by the situation here in Victoria with the prolonged shutdown.

Victoria has in the past been the strongest state in Australia for pilot training. It has been the heart of the international export of pilot training, which until this year was one of our major export earners, providing pilot training into Asia and the Middle East, and of course with the shutdown of international students that has ended. Along with that and as a consequence of that situation, it is now putting our general aviation industry at great risk. The heart of the industry in Victoria has been in the metropolitan area, based out of Moorabbin Airport in my electorate, and with the loss of the international pilot training and the shutdown of pilot training for domestic students, the flow-on effect is now very, very significant and the risk is those businesses not reopening—businesses which are very capital intensive and businesses which have very complex and expensive regulatory environments that make their reopening task very difficult and very challenging.

The industry is at a tipping point. There is a strong risk that those businesses will not reopen, with the loss of that capability not only for the export earnings but also as a pipeline into the air transport industry. The previous government had funds in the budget to support the local industry and encourage the development of the local industry—funds of $4.5 million, which were withdrawn by this government when it came to office. So I seek from the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery firstly to have his department engage properly with the industry. There is a unit ostensibly for aviation strategy and services within his department, which has not engaged properly with the industry, so I ask that that unit engage properly with the industry and that he provide the support that is necessary to ensure that the industry can sustain this downturn it is experiencing at the moment.

Murray Basin rail project

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:17): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. I call on the minister to deliver the originally planned Murray Basin rail project in full. The Murray Basin rail project is apparently the unloved and unwanted albatross around this government’s neck, and it seems the strategy to deal with it is simple: ignore it and it will go away. But it will not. Rail freight has always been the best solution for moving bulk freight across regional Victoria and indeed across all of Australia. Rail removes thousands of trucks from the roads, and modern locomotive design makes for even greater fuel efficiencies. A single train can carry hundreds of tonnes of wheat. Cheaper rail freight drives down costs for producers and consumers. The Murray Basin rail project was supposed to be the much-needed and long-postponed upgrade to Victoria’s neglected rail freight network. It should drive economic growth. It should create jobs. It should cut road congestion and therefore reduce wear and traffic volumes on our roads.

Opening up the regional rail lines will allow an increase in bulk freight from Portland, boosting not only grain production but mining in north-west Victoria. It will do all that if it is given the chance, but this government is determined to let it sit in a corner hoping it will go away because it is not a metropolitan project—it is not happening in the city. To this government it is an irrelevant regional thing, something that does not matter, because to this government, regional Victoria does not matter. You do not know where it is, you have never been there and you do not care. The more you neglect regional Victoria the closer you bring us to Rexit, the moment we will create a new regionally based state where we can look after our own interests and not have our economy strangled by city politicians.

I spoke exactly a year ago today about how $440 million of taxpayers money had been spent on the rail project with very little to show for it. Back in July I highlighted that the project had not received a single cent from the $525 million joint federal and Victorian government road-and-rail money pot. Ten days ago we learned that this government had abandoned half the promised upgrades and instead settled for just signalling, track patch-up and siding work. A promise to fully standardise the rail freight network, including the Ballarat, Manangatang and Sea Lake lines was dumped. Instead there was a half-hearted effort to patch things up and, more alarmingly, correct flawed work from the original $440 million spend. One of the flaws needing fixing was the upgrading, if you can call it that, of the Maryborough-to-Ararat line using second-hand rails which were already a century old. Post upgrade freight loads and speed restrictions were lower than they were before the work began. The failure to standardise the gauge means the capability of the lines has been crippled.

Minister, pretend for just a moment you care about regional Victoria. Do something in the regions properly for once. Do not cripple our regional economies. Do not pull up any more of our rail lines and give us rail trails for weekend city bike riders in their place. I call on the minister to fix this mess, fix the regional rail lines and deliver the originally planned Murray Basin rail project in full.

COVID-19

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:20): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and relates to the curtailment of Victorians’ rights to freedom of assembly and self-expression. We cannot deny the peoples’ discontent at continued lockdown restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne. It is clear in polling, petitions and correspondence with parliamentarians, as well as the protest gatherings held to date. Public assembly is fundamental to a properly functioning democracy, and political freedom does not begin and end at the ballot box. Allowing citizens to express political discontent, including by means of public presence at a place or in procession, should be a central duty of the state. Even when specific catastrophic circumstances arise, including public health crises, this duty does not simply disappear. Any restrictions must be limited, proportionate, frequently reviewed and actively mitigated. Our widely drawn public health orders give the government great power. They must understand that failing to act in a transparent and proportionate manner fatally undermines the public trust which democracy requires.

Controlling free assembly and political expression may be legal under emergency powers. It may be convenient politically. But abuse of it will fatally undermine the democratic covenant which underpins our society, and it does not dispel the impression that our Premier believes he and his cabal know best and outside and opposing voices must by definition be wrong. Victorians who wish to protest against existing lockdown conditions do not have any overwhelming desire to act with hostility towards Victoria Police or to cause inconvenience to the public at large, nor do police officers take any joy in unduly restricting the rights of citizens or exposing themselves to the consequences of disorderly protest. They are caught in the middle, forced to tread a fine line between enforcing the Premier’s directions and trampling on the freedoms of their fellow Victorians. Mixed messages from government have made this operational judgement harder still.

Many observers have concluded that the absence of clear guidance presuming consent for protest makes selective application of the rules possible. We have seen subjective decisions based on political convenience, not objective public health grounds, and amounting to ministerial censorship of the democratic right to free assembly. The action I seek from the minister for police, therefore, is an affirmation of the legality of public assembly and protest and the active presumption of its consent. Furthermore, an instruction to Victoria Police from the minister to work where possible with protest leaders to facilitate events would restore fundamental rights, remove the perception of bias and reduce public tensions. It would enhance public safety, reduce disruption and cost, and rebuild Victorians’ trust in their government and police.

Online offending

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (16:23): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action I seek relates to online offending. Right now in our society we are experiencing an exponential increase in vile threats, abuse and harassment commissioned online and via social media. We heard last week during the Senate estimates how actor Magda Szubanski has been subject to volumetric and coordinated attacks. I have spoken at length in this place in relation to the experience of female journalists, female sports stars and many others who are experiencing these extraordinary attacks that not only put them at physical risk but also silence them in these online spheres. From my personal perspective, only this week the Queensland police charged a Queensland man as a result of the threats he made against me on a Facebook video.

For too long we have put these threats made over the internet into a different category to threats made over the phone or in person. That approach just no longer reflects the way people communicate and interact in our society. Threats made online are just as real as threats made via any other medium, and it is time that they were policed as such. Stalking, threat to kill, threat to cause serious injury and using a carriage service to harass or menace are routinely charged offences that the Victorian police could utilise right now to capture this type of online conduct, and it is time they did.

I am someone who has fought for free speech most of my adult life and certainly for a lot of my career, so I do not take this lightly. I understand the tumble that happens online and I understand that kind of online harassment, but when it comes to the types of threats that are being made—the types of threats that would be treated very differently if they were done over the phone or via a letter, they seem to be treated quite differently when they are done via social media or even email. So the action I seek is that the minister cause a review of the way in which Victoria Police treats, investigates and charges threats, abuse and harassment commissioned online, to better address this type of offending in our community.

COVID-19

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (16:26): I raise a matter for the Premier. The hotel quarantine inquiry is his creation. It is a product of the executive. He has dictated the terms of reference, the funding and the timing of that inquiry. That has been confirmed by the board chairperson. In correspondence she has actively referred to seeking the Premier’s extension of time as opposed to the Governor in Council. So it is his creation; it is inquiry. He says it will be transparent, he says he will be open with the inquiry, but what we have seen is senior witness after senior witness have amnesia—not remembering key facts. They remember some things but not others. We have seen now with the chief health officer a voluminous production of documents but not the key documents that he now does not have a recollection of—or they did not register with him. Now we see today reported in the Age key documents to the hotel quarantine inquiry completely redacted, making an absolute lie of the Premier’s promise to be open and transparent with this inquiry.

The inquiry has an extension to 21 December. I have written to the inquiry asking that they hold further public hearings with the Premier and with Jenny Mikakos, who says Premier Daniel Andrews’s evidence cannot be relied upon which, President, as you know, is code for ‘He’s not telling the truth’. A range of other key witnesses must give further evidence. The action I seek from the minister—

The PRESIDENT: Do not include me in it, please.

Mr O’DONOHUE: Sorry?

The PRESIDENT: Don’t include me—‘as you know’. You said as I know.

Mr O’DONOHUE: President, the action I seek from the Premier is to stop the spin, stop the doubletalk, stop the clever games and be honest and produce the documents and the witnesses needed to find the truth, because the 800 Victorians who have died deserve the truth and the millions of Victorians who have suffered because of his second wave deserve the truth. The hotel quarantine inquiry has an obligation to get to the facts and to get to the truth, and the Premier has an obligation to give the information and material to enable it to do so.

COVID-19

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:28): My matter is for the attention of the Minister for Small Business. Today in the chamber Dr Bach asked a question about the existence of support for QR codes for a series of hospitality and other businesses. This was I think an important question, an important contribution. Businesses by and large want to actually work with government. They actually want to have an arrangement where they can open safely and they can open with greater capacity. The contact tracing on one hand is the key to enable us to open up; on the other is the information that supports the contact tracing. QR codes are an electronic, non-spreading method of ensuring that that data is collected, and the interrelationship between the electronic systems that businesses might have at a local level and the contact-tracing system that the government has at a central level is an important way of smoothly moving information when it is needed across the system.

What I am seeking from the minister is that she go beyond platitudes. It is clear that there is no money and no support for businesses implementing the QR code system. I say there should be. The government should provide some support for businesses that want to do the right thing, and I am asking her: will she actively and urgently investigate supporting financially and otherwise the QR code system to be implemented in such a way that contact tracing is supported and that businesses can be opened up more broadly and our economy can move? This is about jobs, it is about getting our system back, and it is not good enough for the Minister for Small Business to wipe her hands of these responsibilities. She is there to be an advocate—to be a fierce advocate—for small business, and she is not doing it.

Responses

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (16:30): This afternoon there were 13 adjournment matters: Ms Crozier to the Minister for Mental Health, Ms Watt to the Minister for Employment, Ms Maxwell to the Treasurer, Mr Ondarchie to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Dr Cumming to the Minister for Local Government, Mr Finn to the Premier, Mr Limbrick to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Rich-Phillips to the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Mr Quilty to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Mrs McArthur to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Ms Patten to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr O’Donohue to the Premier and Mr Davis to the Minister for Small Business.

The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 4.31 pm until Tuesday, 10 November.

Answers to constituency questions

Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.

17 October to 30 October 2020

Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (19 March 2020)

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

There is high demand for car parking at stations across the network, which is why the Andrews Labor Government is committed to delivering over 11,000 new and upgraded commuter parking spaces at stations across Victoria. This is on top of almost 10,000 new and upgraded car parking spaces built by this government since 2014.

In Eastern Metropolitan Region, the government’s Car Parks for Commuters program includes new and upgraded car parks for Eltham, Montmorency, Mooroolbark and Ringwood East stations.

More information on the program is available at on the website of the Department of Transport at: https://transport.vic.gov.au/getting‐around/public‐transport/car‐parks‐for‐commuters.

In addition to new parking spaces, the Car Parks for Commuters program will also make stations safer and more accessible for commuters with new lighting, security and signage.

The Federal Government has committed to a program of commuter car park upgrades, some of them in Victoria, under its Urban Congestion Fund to reduce congestion in urban areas.

Further information is available on the website of the Federal Government’s Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications at: https://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/key_projects/initiatives/urban_congestion_fund.aspx.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16 June 2020)

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Coordination of Environment, Land, Water and Planning: COVID-19):

Hunting is an important sporting and cultural pastime in Victoria. Tens of thousands of Victorian, interstate and overseas game hunters generate jobs and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the State economy, particularly in rural and regional Victoria.

The irresponsible or illegal behaviour of some damages the reputation of hunters and can create unsafe or unsustainable situations. Victoria Police works closely with partner agencies, including the Game Management Authority (GMA), which is the primary regulator of game hunting in Victoria, to address illegal shooting and hunting and to ensure hunters are complying with the relevant laws governing hunting and the use of firearms.

Licensed hunters are strictly regulated in relation to which animals they can and cannot hunt. All hunters are required to undergo and pass an identification test as a measure of their ability to correctly identify game and non-game animals and are prohibited from using lead shot while hunting.

Victoria Police and the GMA will continue to work together and engage with the community to educate and to ensure compliance with hunting and public safety standards.

I note your specific concerns regarding the conduct of hunters in your electorate, which have been brought to the attention of the GMA and Victoria Police.

If your constituents identify any further conduct of concern, I would encourage them to lodge a formal complaint with the GMA by visiting its website at https://www.gma.vic.gov.au/enforcement/report-illegal-hunting-online and filling out the online form. Alternatively, they may contact the GMA directly on 136 186 or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

Safety is paramount, and it’s important that recreational shooters handle their weapons with care and in accordance with established safety guidelines. The Government remains committed to firearms laws that strike the right balance between public safety, and the legitimate interests of licensed firearms holders who responsibly use a firearm, such as sporting shooters, primary producers and recreational hunters.

Southern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (4 August 2020)

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

Thank you for your question regarding support for sole traders in the Chapel Street precinct.

The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring our sole traders, micro-businesses and SMEs impacted by ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, mentoring and wellbeing assistance to make it through to the other side of the crisis.

The Victorian Government understands that sole traders in a number of sectors will remain restricted as we move towards reopening the economy. We have therefore announced a $100 million Sole Trader Support Fund, which will provide grants of up to $3,000 to eligible sole traders working in sectors of the economy that will continue to be affected by restrictions.

Employing businesses, including sole traders, may also be eligible for grants under the Business Support Fund. Through the third round of the Business Support Fund, eligible businesses that must stay closed or operate under restrictions until COVID Normal can apply for grants of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, depending on the business’ annual payroll.

Applications for the Sole Trader Support Fund and the third round of the Business Support Fund are now open on the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.

Sole traders and micro-businesses are being assisted to adapt, survive and thrive through a range of online workshops and mentoring programs including the Upskill My Business program that offers free premium short courses from the state’s top education providers and industry experts to emerge strongly and ready to succeed.

The Business Recovery and Resilience Mentoring program and access to off-the-shelf digital products to help sole traders adapt their operations to the online environment and prepare them for new market conditions. We have also invested $26 million in the Wellbeing and Mental Health Support for Victorian Business program to help Victorians deal with the compounding challenges of running a business through the crisis.

SMEs including sole traders who operate out of commercial premises can also apply for the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme, including the Victorian Small Business Commission’s free mediation support for landlords and tenants to reach agreement on their leases. The Government has extended the scheme to 31 December 2020 to provide business with certainty at this time.

Small Business Victoria is continuing to offer support to businesses through capability building workshops, the virtual Small Business Bus and mentoring program that are available free of charge. The Business Victoria digital channels provide current COVID-19 business information including the Business Victoria Update free newsletter for businesses to stay informed of new support, grant applications and announcements as they are released.

More information on the Victorian Government’s business support measures can be found at the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au or by calling the Business Victoria hotline, 13 22 15.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (18 August 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Colac Otway Shire applied to the Conservation Regulator for an Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) to disperse Grey-headed Flying-foxes from the Colac Botanical Gardens.

The application submitted by the Colac Otway Shire and the associated Management Plan 2019–2024 were reviewed by an Independent Panel of Experts.

On 11 August 2020, the Conservation Regulator approved the ATCW to disturb GHFFs consistent with the independent expert advice provided. The permit includes strict conditions for control including:

• Limiting disturbance to acoustic, visual or smoke that does not cause physical injury and prohibiting the use of laser lights;

• Limiting the timing and duration of disturbance activities;

• Limiting the seasonality of disturbance particularly so disturbance does not occur when Grey-headed Flying-foxes are out of breeding season or during heat stress events;

• Requiring the Colac Otway Shire to have a wildlife expert present during dispersal activities.

The current dispersal activities have been monitored by the Conservation Regulator and all reports indicate that there are low numbers of Grey-headed Flying-foxes in the Colac Botanical Gardens.

I understand dispersal activities have not been undertaken since 19 August 2020.

The Conservation Regulator have had no reports of sick or injured Grey-headed Flying-fox’s in the Colac area. There have been no confirmed reports to the Conservation Regulator of visibly pregnant Grey-headed Flying-foxes during this time.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18 August 2020)

Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers):

The way services have been delivered has had to change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and directions from the Chief Health Officer.

The Department of Health and Human Services (the department) is doing everything possible to protect and support vulnerable children and young people while also preventing them as well as their families, carers and staff from being exposed to COVID-19.

Child Protection Practitioners have been asked to develop contact and/or connection plans for each child subject to court-ordered contact, to maintain contact and connection with their family. Plans have been developed in consultation with parents, carers, community service organisations, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, and the child where they are of an age to participate. Contact and connection between children and families may include face to face, telephone and video calls, and texting.

Practice advice for child protection in relation to court ordered contact is being regularly reviewed to consider current public health and safety advice.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (1 September 2020)

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

The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring small business owners impacted by the ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, mentoring and wellbeing assistance.

Most recently, the third round of the Business Support Fund was announced on 13 September, providing cash grants to businesses with payrolls under $10 million of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 depending on their size. Small businesses, including those in Victoria’s western metropolitan region will be able to apply for the cash grant, with applications now open.

An $87.5 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package was announced on 14 September to support hospitality businesses prepare for COVID Normal reopening. As part of the package, $58 million is available to provide grants of up to $5,000 to help hospitality businesses, many of which are located in metropolitan shopping strips, purchase outdoor equipment for outdoor dining. The package also includes $29.5 million in funding to be provided to local councils to assist them to implement swift and streamlined processes to support expanded outdoor dining.

The $3 million Grants for Business Chambers and Trader Groups program provides funding to Victorian business chambers and trader groups for initiatives that will help support their members as we move into recovery and COVID Normal. Grants of $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000 will be awarded to eligible groups—many of which are based around shopping strips and shared commercial space—through a competitive application process.

Communities in metropolitan Melbourne will benefit from improved suburban activity centres and shopping strips through a $6 million investment announced on 30 July 2020, to support local communities in Metropolitan Partnership regions. This support includes $3 million for the Neighbourhood Activity Centre Renewal Fund to provide grants of up to $100,000 to stimulate business activity, support local economies and improve public amenity and accessibility during the pandemic. The fund will involve partnerships with Local Government, businesses and the community sector and is open to 31 councils in metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire.

The Business Recovery and Resilience Mentoring program and access to off-the-shelf digital products will help business owners adapt their operations to the online environment and prepare them for new market conditions. The Victorian Government has also invested $26 million in the Wellbeing and Mental Health Support for Victorian Business program to help Victorians deal with the compounding challenges of running a business through the crisis.

Small Business Victoria is continuing to offer support to businesses through capability building workshops, the virtual Small Business Bus and mentoring program that are available free of charge. The Business Victoria digital channels provide current COVID-19 business information including the Business Victoria Update free newsletter for businesses to stay informed of new support, grant applications and announcements as they are released.

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15 September 2020)

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

The government is aware that like many businesses, the shutdown of non-essential activity to slow the spread of COVID-19 has had a significant impact on clubs and hotels, including those operating gaming machines.

Clubs are an important part of local communities and make a significant contribution to the Victorian economy. The government understands that it has been a challenging time for clubs during COVID-19 given the closure of gaming venues in Victoria.

To mitigate the impact on licensed venues operating gaming machines the government has delayed the March 2020 gaming machine tax for hotels and clubs and delayed the gaming machine supervision charge until January 2021.

To further support affected businesses, the government has also:

• waived liquor licence fees for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years

• fast-tracked and provided free temporary licences for takeaway and delivered alcohol sale

• provided $40 million from the Business Support Fund towards rent relief for licensed venues with a turnover of up to $50 million

• established a dedicated $251 million Licensed Venue Fund to support bars, restaurants, pubs, clubs, hotels and reception centres through grants of between $10,000 and $30,000, and

• deferred payroll tax for businesses with payrolls up to $10 million for the full 2020-21 financial year.

The government is continuing to monitor the impact of the pandemic and will consider a range of options to support struggling businesses.

Venue operators experiencing financial hardship can apply for relief in relation to their outstanding entitlement payments under the financial hardship scheme administered by the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (15 September 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

On 11 October 2020, the Chief Health Officer issued the Area Directions (No 9) that came into effect at 11:59pm on 11 October 2020. The Restricted Area list currently includes councils within metropolitan Melbourne. The Cardinia Shire Council is classified as part of metropolitan Melbourne as it does not fall under Schedule 2 of the Regional Development Act 2002.

From 11:59pm on 18 October 2020, Victorians residing within metropolitan Melbourne can travel up to twenty-five kilometres from their home or permitted workplace to exercise or access necessary goods and services within metropolitan Melbourne. Other restrictions that have been eased include rescinding the two-hour time limit for exercise and socialising, reopening outdoor sports settings, such as golf and tennis, and the resumption of industries and services such as hairdressing, and a full return of permitted allied health care services.

Further changes to restrictions for metropolitan Melbourne will take place by 11.59pm on 1 November 2020. This is a timeline based on the current advice of our public health team. If Victoria continues to track well on the most important indicators including case averages, mystery cases, test numbers and the number of days people wait before they get tested, we may be able to ease more restrictions sooner.

Recognising the impact on the economy of driving down coronavirus cases and moving to a COVID Normal state, the Government is taking additional steps—through a further $3 billion in cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support–to assist Victorian businesses and help keep Victorians in jobs.

I encourage business owners in Cardinia Shire to seek further information about how they can access supports available through this important investment.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16 September 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve was designated as a state game reserve in 1961.

Parks Victoria prepared the draft Tower Hill Activation and Linkages Plan following an extensive engagement process in 2019 that featured 257 responses to an online survey. With the release of the draft plan, Parks Victoria recently coordinated an engagement program in September and October 2020 that resulted in the Engage Victoria website receiving 2,263 visits, 235 responses to an online survey and two online community sessions were held, involving approximately 60 attendees.

The focus of Parks Victoria’s planning is on enhancing facilities and infrastructure so that people can continue to enjoy all of the activities that this special place currently offers. This aims to ensure the reserve continues to be a key regional destination. Parks Victoria expects to release the final plan in autumn 2021.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16 September 2020)

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support):

Under the Children,Youth and Families Act 2005, children and young people in Youth Justice custody are entitled to have their developmental needs catered for and to have reasonable efforts made to meet their medical, religious and cultural needs.

However, due to the significant health risks posed by COVID-19, and the need to maintain a safe physical distance in line with official health advice, changes have been made to the way that services and supports are delivered in Youth Justice’s custodial centres. The Department of Education and Training has introduced laptops to support children and young people in custody to receive education. These devices do not have a live internet connection.

Processes are in place to regularly audit these devices and internet usage. Youth Justice recently identified an incident involving suspected unauthorised technology access in custody. This is clearly unacceptable and an investigation into the incident is underway. I would be pleased to update the Member once it has been completed. The incident has also been reported to Victoria Police.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (16 September 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I am advised that:

The Andrews Labor Government will invest more than $1.68 billion over the next decade, in partnership with the sector, to support the building and upgrading of kindergarten facilities across Victoria. In the 2019–20 State Budget, the Government commenced this investment by allocating $473.2 million for early childhood infrastructure. In May 2020, the Building Works package provided a further $27.75 million towards the new Building Blocks grants program, assisting the infrastructure component of funded universal Three-Year-Old Kinder.

Since 2014, the Government has invested over $30 million in early childhood infrastructure in the Western Metropolitan Region to support building 19 new kindergartens and upgrading 9 existing services. Most recently, in 2019-20, this included funding of $1,000,000 to support a New Early Learning Facility, KU Maidstone Children’s Centre, Maidstone.

To complement this historic investment, the Government recently announced more than $200,000 in IT grants to existing kindergartens in the Western Metropolitan Region, which will support access to the latest technology to deliver high quality kindergarten services.

I thank the member for her strong advocacy for early childhood services in her community.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (13 October 2020)

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

I would like to thank the Member for Western Metropolitan Region, Ms Kaushaliya Vaghela, for her strong advocacy for the Growing Suburbs Fund and its benefits for her constituents.

The Growing Suburbs Fund supports the critical infrastructure needs of our fastest growing communities. The fund is positioned to respond quickly to the pressures being experienced by growth communities by bringing forward local projects that will make a big difference in the day-to-day lives of outer suburban families.

Since its establishment in 2015, GSF has invested $275 million in funding 221 community projects. This has created more than 7470 jobs and leveraged more than $755 million in investment. In 2020-21, the Victorian Government announced an additional $25 million to continue the GSF to support the infrastructure needs of interface and peri-urban communities. Twenty-eight new projects have been funded this funding round with a total project cost of $90.3 million to support community infrastructure projects.

From the Western Metropolitan Region electorate, Hume, Melton and Wyndham City Councils are eligible for GSF funding.

In the 2020-21 GSF funding round, Hume City Council received $575,000 towards four projects, including the DS Aitken Reserve Skate Park Upgrade ($210,000), Melba Avenue Streetscape Upgrade ($105,000), Coopers Hill Drive Reserve Upgrade ($142,500) and the Kirwan Park Upgrade ($117,500). In total, Hume City Council has received $25,350,491 towards the delivery of 26 projects from the GSF since 2015-16.

Melton City Council received $2.5 million from the 2020-21 GSF funding round towards the Diggers Rest Community Pavilion. In total, Melton City Council has received $31,650,000 from the GSF since 2015-16 to deliver 28 projects.

Wyndham City Council received $2.5 million from the 2020-21 GSF funding round to deliver the Tarneit North Masterplan Implementation project. In total, Wyndham City Council has received $27,575,850 from the GSF since 2015-16 to deliver 20 projects.

I look forward to working closely with local councils to ensure the successful delivery of community infrastructure projects funded under the GSF, including projects that received support from the GSF in Western Metropolitan Region.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (13 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. From 11:59pm on 18 October 2020, restrictions across metropolitan Melbourne eased allowing Victorians to travel up to 25 kilometres from their home or permitted workplace to exercise, see friends or family outdoors or access necessary goods and services within metropolitan Melbourne.

Other restrictions that have eased include lifting the two-hour time limit for exercise and socialising, reopening outdoor sports settings, such as golf and tennis, the resumption of industries and services such as hairdressing, and a return to full services for permitted allied health care sectors.

Further changes to restrictions for metropolitan Melbourne will likely take place by 11.59pm on 1 November 2020. This is a timeline based on the current advice of our public health team. If Victoria continues to track well on the most important indicators including case averages, mystery cases, test numbers and the number of days people wait before they get tested, we may be able to ease more restrictions sooner.

Recognising the impact on the economy of driving down coronavirus cases and moving to a COVID Normal state, the Government is taking additional steps—through a further $3 billion in cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support—to assist Victorian businesses and help keep Victorians in jobs.

The Victorian Government is also working to support Victorians who are struggling. The Government has provided nearly $220 million for Victoria’s mental health system, including supporting clinical and community mental health services across Victoria. More information on how you can stay connected and look after your mental health during this time can be found on the Department of Health and Human Services website: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/mental-health-resources-coronavirus-covid-19 or via the coronavirus hotline on 1800 675 398.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Our government recognises the significant challenges that this global pandemic has brought to our state and the lives of every Victorian. The decisions we have taken as a government have been driven by the advice of our public health experts and, even as we move along our roadmap to reopening, we must continue to take safe, steady and sustainable steps to protect the health and safety of all Victorians.

The permitted worker scheme is a vital part of Victoria’s coronavirus response. We need to take unprecedented steps in order to drive this virus down and by limiting the movement of people, we can limit the spread of this virus.

Workers will start returning to their place of work as we move toward COVID Normal on our roadmap to reopening. Until then, if someone can work from home it is important that they do so. We know the risk of transmitting this virus is heightened in enclosed spaces, and by working from home we dramatically reduce the risk of further spread.

We are constantly assessing the permitted worker scheme in line with public health advice and will continue to do so. We will not keep these restrictions in place any longer than is necessary and I, like all Victorians, look forward to achieving a COVID Normal.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (13 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

So many Victorians have made sacrifices throughout this pandemic—and I know many in our faith communities will be hurting at not being able to worship together with family and community.

My focus is on keeping all Victorians safe during this pandemic, including making sure faith communities can gather and worship safely.

As of 16 September 2020, under Third Step restrictions for regional Victoria, all places of worship for all denominations may conduct private worship indoors. Private worship can be attended by a household plus a faith leader. Places of worship for all denominations are closed for all other religious ceremonies and services, except for weddings and funerals.

Under the Third Step of the Roadmap in regional Victoria, from 11:59 pm on 18 October 2020, people are able to hold outdoor religious gatherings with up to 20 people plus a faith leader. This replaces the previous limit of ten people. This includes ceremonies, with no sharing of food, drink, crockery, utensils, vessels or other equipment by participants. The number of people attending gatherings in regional Victoria is proposed to increase to 50 people by Sunday 1 November 2020.

These restrictions and their easing have been based on public health advice and evidence that large numbers of people indoors, especially if people are known to each other, is one of the highest risk activities for increasing transmission of coronavirus.

The Government will continue to meet with, and consult, faith leaders and communities across Victoria to help inform the further opening up of in-person religious observances as soon as it is safe to do so.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

From 11.59pm on 16 September 2020, regional Victoria progressed to the Third Step of our reopening roadmap. At this step, regional businesses including retail can open with a COVIDSafe Plan and must comply with relevant density quotients, cleaning and records requirements. Changes to restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria are informed by the advice of the Chief Health Officer and aim to protect the health and safety of all Victorians.

In addition, as of 11.59pm on 11 October 2020, and building on existing restricted area requirements, certain regional businesses are required to undertake residence checks of their customers. This requirement applies to beauty and personal care facilities and hairdressers, seated hospitality, and tourism accommodation and operators. These businesses must also refuse access and service and not take bookings from people who ordinarily reside in metropolitan Melbourne. These regional businesses must use all reasonable endeavours to undertake a residence check or face fines of up to $9,913.

Businesses that carry out this residence check but are misled by someone intent on breaking the rules will not be fined. Instead, individuals found deliberately ignoring the restrictions will risk a fine of $1,652. Melbournians who are found in regional Victoria without a valid reason face fines of up to $4,957.

These measures aim to ensure that regional businesses can keep their staff and customers safe, and to discourage Melbournians from unauthorised travel into regional Victoria.

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health, Minister for the Coordination of Education and Training: COVID-19):

The Government is committed to supporting every school to provide a positive and nurturing environment for children to develop confidence, social skills and healthy life habits. We know that mental health is a concern for Victorians, which is why the Government has established the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System to look at all aspects of the system, including the needs of children and young people. The Premier has committed to implementing all of its recommendations.

In 2018, the Andrews Labor Government announced the Mental Health Practitioners initiative to expand support to Victorian students. This $51.2 million investment over four years will allow secondary schools across the state to employ over 190 qualified mental health professionals such as social workers, psychologists, occupational therapists and mental health nurses.

By the end of 2021, every government secondary school will receive between one and five days a week of support from a mental health professional, depending on their enrolment numbers. This means every government secondary school student will be able to access mental health support at school, with the initiative to provide at least 385,000 hours of additional support in schools over four years.

The mental health practitioners will provide direct counselling support and other early intervention and health promotion services for students that need it, as well as coordinating support for students with complex needs.

Schools will also have access to expert advice online through an online mental health toolkit, which will support school-based health and wellbeing teams to deliver mental health plans and support to students, and receive advice on how schools can connect with allied and community health services.

Victorian secondary school students with mental health issues are able to access counselling through the headspace counselling partnership or through their school’s Mental Health Practitioner.

The Andrews Labor Government recently announced a two-year $28.5 million package of initiatives to ensure more students can receive more support, including through the Navigator Program, LOOKOUT, Mental Health Practitioners and the Mental Health in Primary Schools pilot.

The Department has also developed mental health and wellbeing resources for students, including videos on resilience, managing stress, and staying active. Resources for teachers and parents/carers to support the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in their care include activities and conversation starters to promote positive wellbeing. These resources are available through the ‘Mental Health Toolkit’ which can be accessed on the Department’s website at: www.education.vic.gov.au (search: mental health toolkit).

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15 October 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes)

The Victorian Government is committed to protecting consumers and making energy more affordable for Victorian households and small businesses. The Government is also committed to ensuring that households with solar panels are fairly compensated for the power they send back into the grid.

Minimum feed-in tariff (FiT) rates are set annually by the Essential Services Commission (ESC), Victoria’s independent energy regulator. In 2016, the Andrews Labor Government asked the ESC to develop a fair, independent method for setting the minimum feed-in tariff (FiT) by considering its wholesale market value, any avoided distribution and transmission losses and the environmental and social value of distributed generation. These reforms saw the FiT more than double, while introducing an independent process to manage the FiT into the future.

On 25 February 2020, the ESC released its final decision on the 2020-21 FiT rates following a period of public consultation from 3 December 2019 to 17 January 2020. From 1 July 2020, customers on the current minimum FiT will receive a single rate of 10.2 cents per kilowatt hour (c/kWh). The reduction in the minimum FiT for 2020-21 is largely due to the forecast reduction in wholesale electricity prices for the financial year 2020-21.

To help Victorians get the best deal on their energy, the Victorian Government has set-up the free Victorian Energy Compare website at www.victorianenergysaver.vic.gov.au/victorian-energy-compare. This site helps Victorian households and small businesses find and compare energy offers so they can find a better deal for electricity and gas.

The government also encourages customers to maximise their electricity cost savings by using the solar power they generate rather than sending it back to the grid. Increasing self-consumption of solar energy can be as easy as switching to use energy-intensive household appliances like washing machines and dishwashers during the peak solar generation times of the day.

The Government has made it possible for tens of thousands of Victorian families to access solar through its landmark Solar Homes program. This $1.3 billion dollar investment will help 770,000 households install solar PV, solar hot water or a battery over the next ten years. For many Victorian families, the upfront cost made installing solar unimaginable. But thanks to Solar Homes, they’ve now got a power station on their roof.

Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (16 October 2020)

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

I thank the member for Eastern Metropolitan Region for his question.

The Government acknowledges the significant impacts the coronavirus pandemic is having on all members of the Victorian community, including residential rental providers. We are determined to help all Victorians to get through to the other side of this crisis.

The Government has taken strong measures to slow the spread of coronavirus and save lives. All decisions regarding people and businesses continue to be made based on the best epidemiological evidence available and the advice of the Chief Health Officer. These measures include preventing all non-essential travel between metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.

People who live in metropolitan Melbourne and own a property in regional Victoria can apply to their relevant local council for written permission to travel for fire or emergency preparedness activities. People that have been issued with a Fire Prevention Notice do not require local council permission to travel for fire or emergency preparedness activities. Once in regional Victoria, these people must comply with all conditions of travel specified on the letter of permission or Fire Prevention Notice. These restrictions will limit the time people can spend in regional Victoria. People travelling to regional Victoria must also remember to comply with all restrictions that apply in metropolitan Melbourne, even when they are in regional Victoria.

People who live in regional Victoria and own a second property in regional Victoria can travel there for fire or emergency preparedness activities and do not need written permission to do so.

Written responses to questions without notice

Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.

17 to 30 October 2020

Bushfire preparedness

In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (13 October 2020)

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

Since 2016 the Victorian Government has used a risk reduction target for fuel management on public land.

The risk-based target, rather than a hectare target, was recommended by the Bushfire Royal Commission Implementation Monitor in 2013 and 2014, the Inspector General for Emergency Management in 2015 and subsequently endorsed by an Expert Reference Group of leading academics. The change to a risk-based target was because the old burning target of five per cent of public land was ‘not achievable, affordable, or sustainable’. 1

The risk-based target prioritises Government investment and action—such as planned burning—where it has the greatest impact to keep the community safe from bushfire. This approach measures how effective our fuel management activities are, not just how much we have burned.

Forest Fire Management Victoria’s autumn’s fuel management program is informed by the risk target to prioritise to areas of increasing bushfire risk this summer, including the Midlands area, South Gippsland, Otways and Dandenongs.

During Spring 2020, if weather conditions are suitable, FFMVic will focus on delivering 36 high priority burns near high-risk communities including:

• 6 burns in the Otways district along the Surf Coast near the Anglesea and Aireys Inlet townships;

• 3 burns in the Metro and Yarra districts at Upwey, Mount Dandenong and Gembrook;

• 6 burns in the Latrobe district at Rawson, Wilsons Promontory and Wonthaggi; and

• 21 burns in the Midlands district at Daylesford, Trentham, Macedon, Smythesdale and Enfield.

In addition to the planned burning program, FFMVic will deliver 3,909 hectares of mechanical treatments and strategic fuel breaks in targeted areas around the urban fringe and the interface of public and private land, including:

• 98 treatments in the Latrobe district covering 1,141 hectares around Noojee, Boolarra, Mirboo North, Wonthaggi, Grantville, Walkerville, Waratah Bay, Venus Bay, Foster, Tidal River, Mt. Worth State Park and Morwell National Park;

• 79 treatments in Yarra district covering 390.9 hectares around Warburton, Healesville, Powelltown, Woori Yallock and Yarra Junction;

• 18 treatments in Midlands district covering 885 hectares around Inverleigh, Skipton, Daylesford, Creswick, Nerrina, Hepburn Springs, Sebastopol, Snake Valley and Mount Egerton; and

• 64 strategic fuel breaks (covering 592 hectares) in key locations across the Otway Ranges to protect critical infrastructure and the communities of Anglesea, Aireys Inlet and Lorne.

FFMVic is well advanced in its preparations for the 2020–21 fire season with a specific focus on the impacts of coronavirus. Regular meetings with Canadian fire agencies have provided valuable insights on the delivery of their preparedness and response in the northern hemisphere summer.

Preparedness activities will be completed by mid-November, including the recruitment of 140 extra seasonal Project Fire Fighters. Preparedness activities are undertaken with the aim of ensuring FFMVic staff have the required capability and capacity to meet the challenges of the fire season and improve bushfire response performance.

1 Bushfires Royal Commission Implementation Monitor. Bushfire Royal Commission Implementation Monitor: Annual Report July 2013, State Government of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia, 2013.

Bus licensing

In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)

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

We are aware of concerns raised by members of Victoria’s bus industry in relation to proposed changes to inspection processes that support the assessment of the roadworthiness (safety inspection) of vehicles.

Implementation of changes to inspection requirements is on hold as we undertake further consultation with industry.

We are committed working with industry to ensure appropriate inspection standards are maintained in Victoria—particularly for commercial buses which carry large volumes of the general public and many of which are school buses carrying children.

Our number one priority remains the safety of Victorian road users and to ensure Victorian vehicles are inspected to the highest safety standards.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)

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

I am advised:

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 protects the right to peaceful assembly, as well as other rights such as freedom of movement and freedom of association with others. Neither the state of emergency nor the public health directions issued under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 suspend these human rights, such that they need to be restored or reinstated.

However, human rights are not absolute. Section 7(2) of the Charter makes it clear that rights can be limited where those limits are lawful, reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.

The response to the significant public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic requires steps to protect the community as a whole. In making public health directions, the decision-makers must balance this purpose, as well as people’s fundamental rights to life and health, against any limits on other human rights, like the right to peaceful assembly.

In response to the supplementary question, the Victorian Government established an Expert Reference Group to provide advice about the decriminalisation of public drunkenness and the development of an alternative, health-based response. The Government has now received the Expert Reference Group’s report ‘Seeing the Clear Light of Day’. In developing its advice and recommendations, the group worked closely with Aboriginal stakeholders, police, alcohol and drug experts as well as well as other key stakeholders. The government is considering the Expert Reference Group’s report as it works towards introducing legislation to Parliament this year to decriminalise public drunkenness and support a public health response.

Firearms licensing

In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15 October 2020)

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

I thank the member for his question.

The Licensing and Regulation Division (LRD) of Victoria Police is aware that because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, firearms licence holders have not been permitted to attend and participate at shooting clubs during this time. This has impacted on the ability of licence holders to satisfy participation requirements stipulated in the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic).

In response to this, LRD has made the decision to waive all handgun participation requirements for the 2020 calendar year effective immediately. This means that all shoots or matches required to be completed per number of classes of handgun possessed, will be exempt for the 2020 calendar year.

Approved shooting clubs will still be required to submit an annual report for 2020 within three months after the end of the calendar year to the Chief Commissioner of Police in accordance with s 123C of the Firearms Act 1996. However, licence holders are not required to submit requests for exemption or modification as this variation applies to all affected licence holders.

LRD is continuously monitoring the impact COVID-19 is having on firearms licensees and will consider further amendments to licence holders’ obligations where necessary. I would encourage you and firearms licensees to monitor COVID-19 announcements from LRD, available from: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/firearms-industry-news.

Decisions regarding the ability for photo points to continue operating are made by the relevant location (post office, municipal shire or VicRoads outlets). Please be advised that unless a photo is taken at an authorised location, LRD will be unable to produce and send a plastic licence. LRD advises that no adverse action will be taken against an individual’s licence, should they be unable to have a photo taken. It is recommended they keep their payment notice safe and attend a photo point as soon as it is practicable when restrictions have been eased.

For those who have been approved for a new licence, their payment notice does not act as an interim licence. As soon as payment is received, the LRD’s systems will identify they are licensed. As an indication, once payment has been made, it should take one business day for this to be reflected in the LRD’s systems.

Licence holders who are renewing an existing licence should make payment and retain their payment notice and expired plastic licence.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16 October 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I am advised that:

Questions relating to the Department of Health and Human Services contact tracing team and the broader public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic are best directed to the Minister for Health.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding between WorkSafe and DHHS established in May 2020, DHHS informs WorkSafe of any notification of a pandemic pathogen where a risk of transmission has been identified in a Victorian workplace. More than 2,500 notifications have been received through this process.

Fur industry

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16 October 2020)

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

There is no legislation prohibiting the sale of real fur in Australia and this would be a matter for the Commonwealth Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The trade of fur is regulated under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, which prohibit the import of dog and cat fur into Australia unless the importer is authorised by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to do so.

The labelling of fur and other products is regulated under the national Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, and false or misleading representations. The national ACL also regulates the availability of products under specific circumstances. The powers that state or territory Ministers have under the ACL to restrict the supply of products apply only to circumstances in which a product may pose a safety risk to consumers.

This matter relates to issues previously raised in late 2019 regarding labelling of certain products sold at the Queen Victoria and South Melbourne markets. Those issues were considered, and the allegations investigated by Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). Independent testing failed to reveal non-compliance. However, CAV sent warning letters to market stall operators to ensure stallholders were aware of their obligations under the ACL and the associated penalties with any proven breaches, including as they relate to false or misleading labelling.

Veterans homelessness

In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (16 October 2020)

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

I am aware that due to a reluctance to self-report, data on homelessness among veterans is limited. For this reason, I have asked the Victorian Veterans Council to undertake a study into this and other issues facing veterans and report their findings back to me.

The Victorian Government provides a range of existing accommodation services and has made several commitments during the COVID-19 pandemic to support veterans and the broader community.

On 24 April 2020 the Government announced a $2.2 million package to support ex-service organisations to ensure veterans receive vital support such as accommodation, food supplies and assistance with medical and utility bills.

On 12 April 2020, the Victorian Government allocated $59.4 million for a Mental Health and Wellbeing Coronavirus Response Package to help meet demand as Victorians reach out for help with stress, isolation and uncertainty. As part of this, we provided $100,000 to establish a call centre to connect veterans with government and support services, led by RSL Victoria.

I was pleased to officially launch the Veteran Central (VetCen, 1300 MILVET) call centre on 1 October 2020. In the three months since its soft launch in July, it has received more than 11,000 phone calls and emails and connected veterans to government and other support services for accommodation, emergency food and bills relief, mental, physical and medical health support, employment opportunities and vocational training, and compensation advocacy.

Reducing homelessness is a key priority for the Victorian Government and that is why on 28 July we announced $150 million for the From Homelessness to a Home package. This provides over 2000 homeless Victorians with accommodation until at least April 2021, including pathways to permanent housing.

Specialist Homelessness Services are also collecting data to better inform government about current and former Australian Defence Force personnel who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

And in 2015 the Government entered into a partnership with Housing Choices Australia and RSL Victoria to build and maintain five units in Richmond for veterans experiencing housing instability. The units provide low income or disadvantaged veterans with an opportunity to access stable short to medium term accommodation with the support they need to overcome the issues leading to their housing instability.

The uptake has been high since its inception and there have been many success stories from veterans living in the complex finding employment, returning to study or finding long-term secure housing. A recent evaluation demonstrated the value of the project and the government is exploring opportunities to extend the model used for the project.

The Victorian Government will continue to work closely with ex-service organisations and the Victorian Veterans Council to identify and address gaps in services required by the veteran community.

Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (16 October 2020)

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

I am advised:

Under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, children and young people in Youth Justice custody are entitled to have their developmental needs catered for and to have reasonable efforts made to meet their medical, religious and cultural needs.

However, due to the significant health risks posed by COVID-19, and the need to maintain a safe physical distance in line with official health advice, changes have been made to the way that services and supports are delivered in Youth Justice’s custodial centres. The Department of Education and Training introduced laptops to support children and young people in custody to receive education. These devices do not have a live internet connection.

Any threat of criminal activity is unacceptable. Young people do not have access to mobile phones in custody. Technology (secure tablet devices) is facilitating young people’s case management, youth offending programs, mental health checks and virtual visits with families and significant others.

Processes are in place to regularly audit these devices and internet usage, noting that face to face teaching has now resumed in Youth Justice Centres. Youth Justice recently identified an incident involving suspected unauthorised technology access in custody. This is clearly unacceptable and an investigation into the incident is underway. I would be pleased to update the Member once it has been completed. The incident has also been reported to Victoria Police.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16 October 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

I recognise the significant challenges that coronavirus has brought to our state and to the lives of every Victorian. The decisions the Victorian Government has taken in response to the pandemic have been driven by the advice of our public health experts every step of the way. By implementing those decisions, we have driven down the number of new cases from over 700 in August to single digits. As we move along our roadmap for reopening, we must continue to take safe, steady and sustainable steps to protect the health and safety of all Victorians.

I know that in order to get us here, Victorian businesses and the workers they employ have had to make sacrifices. To protect jobs and help Victorian businesses to survive, the Victorian Government has invested more than $7 billion in direct support for businesses and workers including $3 billion Business Resilience Package supporting Victorian businesses with cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support.

The package will help businesses survive and keep Victorians in jobs. The third round of the Business Support Fund provides grants of $20,000, $15,000 or $10,000, depending on size, to around 75,000 eligible businesses with a payroll of up to $10 million. Through three rounds of the Business Support Fund, we have provided over $2 billion in cash grants to over 100,000 businesses in Victoria.

Further, the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund provides grants of up to $30,000 for licensed pubs, clubs, hotels, bars, restaurants and reception centres, based on their venue capacity and location, plus liquor license fees waived until 2021.

The Sole Trader Support Fund provides grants of $3,000 to over 30,000 eligible sole traders in sectors such as retail, accommodation and food services, creative and media, hairdressing, gyms, events, education and training who operate from a commercial premises or location as a tenant.

Business Chambers and Trader Groups are eligible for a further $3 million delivered through a competitive grants program to support local business groups and chambers of commerce in helping their members adapt to COVID Normal.

This is in addition to $673 million of payroll tax refunds received by 19,000 businesses.

Almost 60,000 taxpayers received land tax deferrals totalling $75.5 million, while 1.2 million government invoices worth a combined $20 billion were fast-tracked to improve cashflow for businesses. Supporting Victorian business means supporting more Victorian jobs.

We have also supported Victorian workers with a $450 COVID-19 test isolation payment to assist with the financial impacts of self-isolating while awaiting test results. And the Victorian Government has provided $500 million to the Working for Victoria initiative to help workers who have been affected by coronavirus. Since launching in April, the $500 million Working for Victoria initiative has created more than 10,000 jobs.

The Victorian Government will continue to support Victorians and Victorian businesses. Our forthcoming budget will include significant targeted and tailored investments to protect and grow Victorian jobs, support Victorian businesses and industry, and boost the state economy as we recover from the impacts of coronavirus.

Djab Wurrung cultural heritage

In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (27 October 2020)

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

Substantive Question

I appreciate that there are strongly held views in relation to Western Highway duplication project and the removal of the Fiddleback tree.

I know that not everyone agrees, however, it is important to make very clear the Government has and will continue to listen to the Traditional Owners who represent this Country, and act in accordance with the decisions they make on the recognition and protection of their cultural heritage.

The tree that was removed on Monday was the tree referred to as the Fiddleback Tree. I am concerned that this tree is being conflated with the Directions Tree that was identified at the western end of the alignment, almost 10km away. That tree has not and will not be removed as part of the project.

The Fiddleback Tree has been the subject of multiple cultural inspections involving Djab Wurrung Elders and extensive re-assessments did not reveal any characteristics consistent with cultural modification.

This this tree was not identified as culturally significant by the project opponents when they sought intervention from the Federal Environment Minister.

Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation is the formally recognised Traditional Owner group that represents the Djab Wurrung people. We have and will continue to respect their cultural authority to speak for Djab Wurrung Country.

As Eastern Maar has stated; “independent arborists have indicated that the tree in question is ‘highly unlikely’ to pre-date European occupation”. I would encourage the Member to refer to Eastern Maar’s media release on the Fiddleback Tree and Western Highway.

We’ve listened to the Traditional Owner Groups every step of the way—the project's design has been approved by both formally recognised groups, an independent Environment Effects Statement process, the Supreme Court, the Federal Environment Minister and the Victorian Ombudsman.

We are continuing to work respectfully and collaboratively with the Djab Wurrung community through Eastern Maar to ensure that the upgrade goes ahead in a way that protects cultural heritage.

Supplementary Question

Victoria’s Aboriginal cultural heritage protections laws are among the strongest in the world.

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Traditional Owners make decisions on the recognition and protection of their cultural heritage. This is a central tenet of Victoria’s cultural heritage protection scheme.

This process involves thorough assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage by Traditional Owners, and a formal consultation process before projects can proceed.

Eastern Maar is the formally recognised Traditional Owner group that represents the Djab Wurrung people. In this instance, Eastern Maar identified a number of trees of cultural significance during their assessment.

As a consequence, the alignment of the road was moved to protect these trees, and the five large trees in the vicinity of Warrayatkin Road camp considered to be of cultural significance will not be removed, including the tree referred to as the Birthing Tree.

We are not in a position, nor would we seek, to intervene or overrule the Traditional Owners. This is key to our commitment to self-determination.

Victorians can be assured that this process for protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage contains important checks and balances, and, again, that it ensures Traditional Owners are the ultimate decision makers.

The Andrews Government is fully committed to the Treaty process, now in phase 2 following the establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria—the first democratically elected representative body for Aboriginal Victorians in the Victoria’s history. Treaty is a once in a generation opportunity for reconciliation.

In addition, the Government has committed to working in partnership with the First Peoples’ Assembly to establish a truth and justice process to formally recognise historic wrongs—and address ongoing injustices—for Aboriginal Victorians.

Truth telling recognises the incredible strength and survival of Aboriginal people—ensuring their voices are heard and respected.

This means Victoria is now the first and only jurisdiction to have actioned both the Treaty and Truth elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It represents a significant step forward on Victoria’s path towards Treaty and builds on our state’s nation-leading work on Treaty, and redress plans for Stolen Generations members, which was announced earlier this year.

Through truth telling and Treaty the Andrews Government continues to work to build new and stronger foundations for a shared future that delivers better outcomes for Aboriginal Victorians and benefits us all.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (27 October 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I am advised that:

All appointments will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and therefore the final number is dependent on that process.

I am advised that, subject to the approval of the Secretary, DHHS, it is envisaged that 167 WorkSafe inspectors will be appointed as authorised officers under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

It is proposed that appointments occur in stages as training and system developments are rolled out, with an initial cohort of 30 inspectors expected to be appointed as part of a first tranche.

Animal welfare

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (27 October 2020)

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

I would like to thank the member for his question asked on the 27 October 2020, and for his passionate interest in the welfare of animals, which is something we have in common.

I appreciate that this might be a distressing topic for many Victorians.

The Victorian Government’s response to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the impact of animal rights activists on Victorian agriculture supported the recommendation that alternative practices to the use of blunt force trauma in some livestock be examined.

The Hon. Lily D’Ambrosio MP , Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change has informed me that there are two relevant national codes of practice that deal with the issue of euthanasia of young kangaroos, and they both recognise the use of blunt force as an acceptable, humane option.

Those codes are:

the National Code of Practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos and wallabies for commercial purposes, and;

the National Code of Practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos and wallabies for non-commercial purposes.

These National Code of Practices outline an achievable minimum standard of humane conduct and were adopted by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) in November 2008.

The NRMMC consists of the Australian state, territory and New Zealand government ministers responsible for primary industries, natural resources, environment and water policy.

Currently, compliance with the National Code of Practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos and wallabies for commercial purposes is a requirement of harvester authorisations issued under Victoria’s Kangaroo Harvesting Program, while the Authority to Control Wildlife system for damage mitigation is consistent with the National Code of Practice for non-commercial purposes.

The National Code of Practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos and wallabies for commercial purposes is currently being reviewed by the Commonwealth government, and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has provided input into the review via an intergovernmental working group.

While this sounds unpleasant, it should be understood that the use of blunt force for euthanasia of young kangaroos is only authorised in the context where there has been a broader authorised culling operation underway for adult kangaroos and the euthanasia of younger animals is undertaken to prevent the inhumane death of young that cannot survive on their own.

Victoria’s regulations are consistent with the relevant National Codes of Practice for humane treatment, we are committed to best practice and are always interested in new science and evidence that might assist us in modernising Victoria’s animal welfare laws.

The Victorian Government is currently reforming its animal welfare laws. DELWP has been working closely with the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) who are leading the reform, to ensure that best practice for animal welfare as it applies to our native wildlife, including euthanasia, is appropriately considered.

I would be happy to pass on any information to The Hon. Lily D’Ambrosio MP, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change which the Member thinks might be relevant to their understanding of what constitutes best practice.

I Cook Foods

In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

Substantive Question:

I can confirm that in June 2020, iCook Foods Pty Ltd commenced legal action against the Department in the Supreme Court claiming compensation for what it alleges is the wrongful closure of the iCook Foods premises. The Department has filed a defence to this claim and denies any wrongdoing.

Whether a police investigation is taking place is a matter for Victoria Police.

Supplementary Question:

There have been a number of internal and external resources used in defending the unsubstantiated claims brought against the department by iCook Foods Pty Ltd.

Murray Basin rail project

In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (28 October 2020)

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

I thank the Member for Western Victoria Region for his questions.

The Murray Basin Rail Project (MBRP) is a vital project for Victoria’s farmers and the freight industry and is already delivering better, more efficient freight services.

The Victorian Government has recently released details of the business case review.

The Victorian Government was disappointed to see the MBRP was the only project on Victoria’s infrastructure wishlist not funded in the recent Federal Budget. The Commonwealth has had the revised business case since May, and Victoria has been working closely with them to determine next steps for the project.

The revised business case noted that our freight and passenger rail networks have evolved significantly in the time since the original business case was first developed in 2012.

The review proposes a package of works which requires an additional $244 million toward the project, taking the overall investment in the MBRP to $814 million. The Victorian Government has committed $48.8 million in further funding towards the project and is seeking $195.2 million from the Commonwealth.

After significant industry consultation, the package of shovel ready works will benefit freight operators by enhancing the network, reducing journey times and delivering a more efficient freight task. It will support around 500 local jobs in construction across the project.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

Substantive Question

I am advised that:

From 1 January 2020 to 27 October 2020, I am advised WorkSafe Victoria undertook 1,341 visits and enquiries to Government workplaces.

Supplementary Question

I am advised that:

I refer the Member to my response to the supplementary question provided to the House.

Crown Casino

In reply to Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)

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

Substantive Question

The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) is Victoria’s agency responsible for preventing and exposing public sector corruption and police misconduct. IBAC’s investigations are independent of government. Anyone with evidence of public sector corruption or police misconduct should make a complaint directly to IBAC.

Supplementary Question

Questions about gambling and liquor regulations and licensees should be directed to the responsible Minister.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)

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

Thank you for your question on how the Victorian Government is consulting with small businesses to help them survive the COVID-19 pandemic.

Engagement with small businesses and their industry representatives since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a team effort. Many different ministers and Victorian Government agencies have been involved in various roundtables, one-one meetings, information sessions and events designed to ensure that as many businesses as possible make it to the other side of this pandemic.

There have been many hundreds of these consultations, connecting the Victorian Government to thousands of small businesses. I am very proud to have been at the forefront of this effort since becoming Minister for Small Business just a few months ago. This has included intensive consultation through forums such as the Small Business Ministerial Council, the Multicultural Business Ministerial Council, and the Small Business Recovery Committee.

Since Stage 4 restrictions were announced on 3 August 2020, 180 industry roundtables and engagement sessions have occurred (as at 29 October) resulting in 12 updates to Workplace Directions, 369 published FAQs, 12 Industry Specific Guidance Notes and 10 COVIDSafe Plan Guidance materials. In addition to this, Small Business Victoria representatives have met each week with industry and trader associations and business chambers.

Just this sitting week I have met with small business organisations on five occasions; this is not unusual.

The Victorian Government is committed to continuing to consult with the Victorian business sector to inform our response to the coronavirus pandemic, pathway to COVID Normal and business recovery.