Legislative Assembly Hansard - Thursday 12 November 2020
Legislative Assembly Hansard
Thursday 12 November 2020

Thursday, 12 November 2020

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.33 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The SPEAKER (09:33): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today.

Business of the house

Orders of the day

The SPEAKER (09:34): I wish to advise the house that general business orders of the day 1 to 4 will be removed from the notice paper unless members wishing their matter to remain advise the Clerk in writing before 2.00 pm today.

Documents

Documents

Incorporated list as follows:

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

Agricultural Industry Development Act 1990—Order under s 8

Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission—Report 2019–20 under s 31 of the Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004

Game Management Authority—Report 2019–20 under s 30L of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:

Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017—SR 122

Road Safety Act 1986—SR 123

Victoria Police—Report 2019–20 under s 37F of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003

Victorian Fisheries Authority—Report 2019–20 under s 30L of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999.

Business of the house

Adjournment

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (09:35): I move:

That:

(1) The house, at its rising, adjourns until Tuesday, 24 November 2020, or an earlier day and hour to be fixed by the Speaker.

(2) If, in the opinion of the Speaker, the next scheduled sitting or a rescheduled sitting should not proceed on the basis of health advice, the Speaker will consult with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business to delay the next meeting and set a future day and hour to meet.

(3) The Speaker will notify members of any changes to the next sitting date.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

COVID-19

Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (09:35): I would like to acknowledge all of the local businesses within the Warrandyte electorate for the fantastic approach they have all taken with the easing of restrictions. Businesses have had to endure months of hardships and uncertainty, with many receiving very little support from this government and with those who were given some support having to deal with multiple layers of bureaucracy. It was an honour to join manager Peter Appleby and staff at the Grand Hotel Warrandyte on Saturday, 31 October, to pour the first beer and celebrate the opening of their brand new beer garden and even more heartening to hear that the pub was already booked out for the next week. It is another positive sign of life returning, with community sport being allowed to resume, and it is great to see local cricket and netball clubs head back into training. Over the coming months I would encourage all residents to think of buying local this festive season and helping to support our local traders, who have done it so tough this year.

Whilst we again saw an easing of restrictions this week, it is staggering that this government refuses to release any of the health advice that guides these decisions. I ask: what is the government hiding? If the advice is sound, then why can’t this government trust this information with the public? Why is health advice a state secret? With the trail of destruction building behind the government-imposed restrictions, not least the severe mental health impacts being experienced by young Victorians, which those opposite barely acknowledge, the least we should be able to do is expect some degree of honesty and transparency.

Werribee Open Range Zoo

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (09:36): I recently had the pleasure of showing the Premier and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change around the fantastic Werribee Open Range Zoo, although I suspect it was not their first visit there. Whilst it is always great to visit this world-class zoo in the heart of Melbourne’s west, this time was perhaps even better as the Premier, minister and I announced that the upcoming budget will deliver $84 million to upgrade and transform the zoo. This funding will create a new elephant sanctuary, the future home of Melbourne’s elephant herd, increasing their space to roam freely to an amazing 22 hectares above the existing 2 hectares of space that they currently have. Visitors will enjoy a sky safari gondola with a unique view of the African wildlife as they roam the flat plains of Werribee. The treetop view for visitors will take in the superb outlook of the K Road Cliffs beyond the Werribee River and out to the You Yangs mountain range. This redevelopment will trigger a huge boost to tourism to Werribee, while creating jobs and boosting the local economy. The expansion of the Werribee zoo will create around 350 jobs, is expected to increase the number of visitors and tourists to 1 million annually and will contribute over $17.8 million annually to Victoria’s economy. I said last week, and I will say it again, I am sure that this investment by the Andrews Labor government will be a roaring success.

COVID-19

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (09:38): I want to thank my community of Gippsland South and indeed the wider Victorian public for their magnificent efforts throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Gippsland South has not had an active case since mid-September and locals have been very diligent in sticking by the rules. Indeed Wellington and South Gippsland shires have had a very low number of COVID-related fines issued by police. But I worry that patience is wearing thin in the community, particularly on the issue of masks and the compulsory wearing of masks. Personally I do not like wearing a mask, but I accept that it is a small and the least costly way of managing risk. That is what it should be about—the level of risk. The government must relax the rule on masks, especially in low-risk outdoor environments. By all means require them in places like supermarkets, crowded indoor shopping centres and other enclosed spaces, but forcing them to be worn by people out for a morning walk or working on their own is counterproductive. This is an evidence-based view backed up by the likes of Melbourne University public health associate professor Nathan Grills in the Herald Sun this morning and respected epidemiologists such as Deakin University’s Catherine Bennett and Melbourne Uni’s Tony Blakely.

Let us all remember, too, that while patting each other on the back for enduring a lockdown that has effectively killed off the virus here in Victoria, it comes with real and dire consequences. I fear the full impact on the economy will not be felt until next year when JobKeeper winds back, and the mental health and secondary health impacts of the lockdown I believe are yet to be truly felt.

Local government elections

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (09:39): I rise to congratulate the newly elected and returning councillors across Brimbank and Melton city councils. As someone who has championed women in politics it is fantastic to see so many women elected to council, and I am proud to say that women now make up the majority of elected councillors in both Brimbank and Melton city councils. I would also like to acknowledge the councillors who cover my electorate, those that got elected, in particular councillors Ranka Rasic, Lara Carli and Steve Abboushi. I look forward to working with local councillors to ensure the residents of Sydenham receive the best possible services and funding from council.

COVID-19

Ms HUTCHINS: I would also like to highlight both councils’ support for local residents during the pandemic. On behalf of Sydenham I thank them for the zero rate increase, the support and engagement with local businesses, providing thousands of meals organised by volunteers to our most vulnerable residents, providing in-home support through the delivery of food parcels and personal care services, and Melton council’s $200 rebate for the 2019–20 rate instalment, with almost 3000 applications received. Finally, a big thankyou to the people of Sydenham and Victoria for their hard work during this pandemic in slowing the spread of this deadly virus. Thirteen consecutive days of zero recorded cases would not have been possible without all the hard work and dedication of people across Victoria, and I want to thank the people of Sydenham in particular.

Forest Hill electorate schools

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (09:41): With the date for the state budget finally set as 24 November I call on the Treasurer to ensure he includes in the budget desperately needed funding to fix up schools in the Forest Hill district, in particular Vermont Primary School, Orchard Grove Primary School, Livingstone Primary School and Vermont Secondary College, just to mention a few. I have called for the government to fund the essential works needed at these and other local schools of mine many times in this place and thus implore the Treasurer to stop ignoring Forest Hill schools and finally provide this urgently needed funding.

Remembrance Day

Mr ANGUS: I was honoured to join with RSL officials, parliamentary colleagues and others at yesterday’s Remembrance Day service on the steps of Parliament. It was an opportunity to pause and remember the great sacrifices made by so many Australians to defend our freedoms in wars over the years. It was sad that the crowd was so small and technically limited to 10 people when the current restrictions for outside hospitality venues are for 70 patrons. This anomaly shows just how arbitrary and idiotic these restrictions are and how the Premier is just making up restrictions as he goes along, with in many cases there being no basis for them at all.

COVID-19

Mr ANGUS: I note again that despite the recent COVID restriction announcements made by the Premier many small businesses are still left completely in limbo. Suburban office workers are still required to work from home, including professional offices with very few staff. For example, local legal, real estate and accounting offices with a principal and a few staff members who have been forced to work from home for many months are still required to do so. An office like this is an extremely low risk environment. The work inefficiencies and inconvenience to both employees and clients is high. The Premier needs to make further announcements urgently to support so-called white-collar workers in the same way he has supported so-called blue-collar workers and his union mates. This decision should be based on common sense and science— (Time expired)

VCE exams

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (09:42): Year 12 exams commence this week, and I want to acknowledge our principals; school leadership teams; heads of department; VCE, VCAL and VET teachers; and the 60 000 students who have had a VCE like no other. COVID has impacted not only on teaching and learning but on the many important events that contribute to year 12 being such a special and memorable year, where lifelong friendships are often forged through the highs and lows of VCE. School musicals, sporting competitions, swimming carnivals, camps and trips, charity fundraisers, performing arts, community service, school dances and leadership opportunities were cancelled. This was disappointing for many who had looked forward to these events as circuit-breakers to long hours of study and homework. My heart goes out to all the VCE students who have experienced many challenges, great uncertainty and significant disruption this year due to the COVID pandemic.

Well done and all the best for the future to the VCE students at Ballarat High School, Mount Rowan Secondary College, Ballarat Specialist School, Loreto College, St Patrick’s College, Ballarat Clarendon College, Ballarat Grammar School, Woodmans Hill College, Phoenix P–12 Community College, Ballarat Christian College and Damascus College. Despite the adversity and tests of their character our amazing, resilient young people have made it through almost to the end of a very tough year. I hope that your end-of-year assessments go well and that 2021 is a brilliant year for you. Congratulations, and go well.

COVID-19

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (09:44): Last week the interim report of the hotel quarantine inquiry was released. Now, of course we know the inquiry still has a very long way to run, but the interim recommendations are rather telling, and there is no more telling section than the recommendations relating to governance. The report recommends that the Victorian government ensure that there are clear control and accountability structures in place for the program; that ultimate responsibility be vested in a cabinet-approved department and minister; that the minister and department be accountable for the operation of the program; that the departmental structure has clearly defined roles with the necessary expertise and advice embedded; that the responsible minister ensure members of the governance structure meet regularly and keep records of meetings, including decisions; and that the minister is briefed on the decisions reached at those meetings. The minister, it suggests, needs to make sure that they receive regular, timely and accurate reports, and they should also set clear and consistent lines of accountability—and so it goes on.

How is it possible that ministers do not already understand the need to have accountability structures in place, to receive regular reports and to be briefed regularly? That the commissioner felt it was necessary to explain to the government that they must have these basic measures in place, to explain accountability 101—because that is what it is, accountability 101—is an indictment on this scandal-ridden, trouble-prone, ineffectual government.

Bayswater electorate schools

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (09:45): One of the best parts of being a local member is being involved in our local school communities. This year, 2020, has of course been a big year, and I am very proud of our local schools. And 2020 also saw my writing challenge, which involved close to 500 entries and nine local schools, a lot of them entering online as well. This year I asked each student if they could change two things what that would be. It was fantastic reading through and very hard to decide the winners, but I did promise that I would read out the names of each winner, so here we go: Bayswater Primary, Aanchal Basel and Shaylee Gauci Fraser; The Basin Primary, Ethan Hack and Abi Goschnick; Bayswater North Primary, Tommy Walker and Annabel Arnst; Boronia West Primary, Koby Ryan; Bayswater South Primary, Katarina Durrance and Luke Wu; Bayswater West Primary, Lachlan Harris and Raelene Mena; Boronia K–12 College, Xavier Tronson and Will Savage; St Joseph’s Primary, Rirpeti Parker and Jasmine Dalton; and Our Lady of Lourdes, Tiana Hogg and Samantha Collard. Everyone got a certificate for their trouble. The overall winners got $200 worth of books to be donated to their libraries thanks to them. The overall winners are Shaylee Gauci Fraser, Abi Goschnick, Katarina Durrance, Will Savage and Tiana Hogg. Thanks again all, and I am looking forward to running the competition again.

Bayswater electorate level crossing removals

Mr TAYLOR: And, very quickly, in 2016 we opened the brand new Bayswater station and officially celebrated the removal of two pesky and dangerous level crossings at Scoresby Road and Mountain Highway. To acknowledge that I had a little comp in my last newsletter asking when it was originally opened, which was December 1889, and when the new one was opened, which was December 2016. Well done to the following people who got it right: Shirley Deans, Maggie Hawkes, Ron Chatelier, Jon Franklin, Lisa Hagar and Cameron Bridges. Of course those two level crossings are part of 75 going across Victoria. Whether it is Scoresby Road or whether it is Mountain Highway or right across the state of Victoria, we are removing level crossings at a rate of knots. They are going the way of dinosaurs, and we will not stop there. There is lots of more work to do, not just delivering across Victoria but importantly in Bayswater.

Lake Knox

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (09:47): First Friends of Dandenong Creek, the Knox Environment Society and Friends of Lake Knox Sanctuary have written to Development Victoria and informed me that, based on observations by citizen scientists within the last fortnight, two pairs of the endangered blue-billed duck are currently nesting on the site at Lake Knox. Back in August of last year I called for a moratorium on any work on this lake being destroyed, but this has been ignored to date by the Andrews government. Given this new information I would hope that the government acts immediately to halt any works on Lake Knox until this important news can be investigated and proper consultation is undertaken with the community.

Kokoda Track Memorial Walk

Mr WAKELING: The 1000 Steps walk, known as the Kokoda Track Memorial Walk, is still closed. Several constituents have contacted me to ask why it is still closed and when it will be reopening. Given this track is used by many people for varying health reasons and not just for fitness, it is time for the government to explain to my community: when will the 1000 Steps be reopened?

COVID-19

Mr WAKELING: I have recently been contacted by small business owners who, whilst they are open and trading, are still doing it very tough, like the Eastern Indoor Sports Centre, which has had very little income as they are entering their quietest summer months and only under-18s can use these facilities. The owner of a dry cleaning business who has very limited income tells me that he has no work because his usual customers are working from home. Neither of these businesses, and many like them, are eligible for any state government funding.

Local government elections

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (09:48): I rise to congratulate the new council team at Banyule City Council. Last night Grimshaw ward councillor Rick Garotti was elected mayor unopposed and Cr Tom Melican was elected deputy mayor unopposed. Two experienced councillors who received overwhelming community support at the ballot box, well done. I welcome new councillors Elizabeth Nealy in Beale ward, Alida McKern in Chelsworth ward, Fiona Mitsinikos in Hawdon ward and Peter Dimarelos in Olympia ward—my old ward from council days. To Cr Peter Castaldo, who was re-elected in Griffin ward, congratulations to you and your young family. We also welcome back Cr Mark Di Pasquale in Bakewell ward and Cr Alison Champion in Sherbourne ward. My regards to a former member of this place for Eltham, who I served with on Banyule Council, Wayne Phillips, who was defeated at the election. I know he has had some serious health issues in recent times, and we wish him well.

Our new councillors are a refreshing mix of old and new faces, different backgrounds and ever-improving gender balance—a progressive council that puts developers on notice and puts an end to the speculative land deals that were becoming too familiar at Banyule. Maybe among the improvements we will see locally is a focus on what is important to families and not personalities. All the best to them all.

Lastly, my good friend Cr David Griffiths was elected to Melbourne City Council, a great achievement for someone who has helped so many others, including myself, hold elected office. I am so pleased to see you earn your opportunity to serve. Go well, brother.

Putting your name on a ballot paper and seeking support from your community is no easy task. I wish the best to all those other Banyule candidates, and I also commend the Victorian Electoral Commission and its staff for their professionalism and hard work.

Zoe Hudgell

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (09:50): This year, 2020, has been a big year in the Colac Otway community. It has at times required people with big ideas, big enthusiasm and an ability to bring people together to make a difference. Each year I present a Polwarth medal to a quiet achiever, someone who has unintentionally made a real difference to the Polwarth electorate. In January, with fires raging around Victoria, an enthusiastic young businesswoman, Zoe Hudgell, and her dance and theatre company, Red Door, arranged a team of people to put together a fantastic community concert known as Band Together Colac: Bushfire Relief. A brilliant concert was arranged on the Lake Colac foreshore and much-needed funds were raised for our emergency services.

Then with Victoria gripped by lockdown and the community looking for some connection, Zoe and her team pulled together an online night of local music and entertainment which thousands of people watched on a live stream, with donations going towards a much-needed heart monitor at the Colac hospital. Still not done using her skills, Zoe and her Red Door team stepped up again in support of local musicians and hospitality businesses with the Big Night In, where the community was encouraged to enjoy another fantastic live-streamed concert, having purchased a fantastic takeaway from one of the many food businesses in and around the Colac district. Zoe Hudgell is this year’s Polwarth community medal award winner.

Footscray electorate cycling infrastructure

Ms HALL (Footscray) (09:51): My electorate of Footscray is just 6 kilometres from the city, yet we have a low uptake of cycling compared to other parts of Melbourne. So the recent announcement by the Minister for Roads and Road Safety of $13 million in funding for 100 kilometres of pop-up bike lanes throughout Melbourne is welcome news, including fixing gaps in Footscray. Most inner westies would know that the Buckley Street, Hopkins Street and Barkly Street connections need improvement, and the Andrews Labor government is going to do just that. We will also be banning trucks on Buckley Street when the West Gate Tunnel is complete, but we know from research conducted here and overseas that safety is often raised as a key concern for cyclists, particularly women.

After a close call myself, I understand why a lot of people decide cycling is not for them, not because they do not want to but because they do not feel safe enough to do it. A world-class city like Melbourne should have a world-class cycling network, and with so many Victorians discovering or rediscovering cycling during the pandemic, now is a great time to encourage and support that. Recreational cycling, including BMX and mountain biking, is a great way to get fit but needs dramatically different infrastructure. Last year the Andrews government invested $100 000 in the new mountain bike trails at Quarry Park in Footscray. For children learning to ride I am very pleased that they can do that now at Hansen Reserve in West Footscray thanks to the bike track for kids that was funded under the Pick My Project grants by the Andrews Labor government. Labor is investing in cycling across the inner west.

Bentleigh electorate schools

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (09:53): Throughout my time as a member of this Parliament nothing has given me greater pleasure than delivering positive outcomes for our schools, particularly in the area of school capital. Despite the pandemic, this year in the Bentleigh electorate there has been a lot of activity when it comes to securing the best possible facilities for our community. East Bentleigh Primary School’s state-of-the-art performing arts centre was completed, and it is going to be a great facility, particularly for the school’s fantastic music program, where the students learn violin, viola and cello. Ormond Primary School’s upgrade was completed, including 10 upgraded classrooms and a STEAM centre. At St Peter’s Primary School, my old school, the upgrade of their classrooms was also completed. For the second campus of McKinnon Secondary College, construction has begun on that fantastic project—it is well underway. I look forward to visiting the site when I can. It will accommodate 1100 students when it opens in 2022, and we are all very, very excited about that. Finally, I was pleased to announce recently $1 million for St Paul’s Primary School in Bentleigh to upgrade their ageing junior building. That is going to be a fantastic project for a much-loved local school in the Bentleigh electorate.

Patricia McMullin

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (09:54): Patricia McMullin, or Tricia to so many of us in Carrum, passed away in the early hours of Sunday, 8 November 2020. In true Tricia style she made it to see Kamala Harris make history as the first female US Vice-President-elect. Tricia was a true believer. Dedicated to her Labor Party, she lived her Labor values every single day. She was the best of our great party—and what a warrior. She was instrumental in campaigns for Jenny Lindell in 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2010; Mark Dreyfus in 2013 and 2016; Peta Murphy in 2019; and my campaigns in 2014 and 2018. Tricia’s was a quiet strength—always present, reassuring, fiercely loyal, hardworking, selfless and with such positivity, often in the face of incredible adversity. These are traits she has clearly passed on to her daughter, Rebecca. She fought her cancers, all of them, over many years and often remarked that they were just a nuisance and that she was all good and feeling great in fact. She was so proud of her Rebecca and spoke of her often, first of being in Hong Kong as a ballet teacher and then in Dallas, where she settled more recently after marrying Gary.

Tricia made a difference. She made a difference to me and she made a difference to every life she touched. She loved to travel, especially to Wimbledon. She loved her tennis, and we spent hours together at the Australian Open. She loved her Melbourne Rebels. She loved her arts, especially the ballet and the opera. She loved her roses. She loved the water and our Seaford pier. But most of all Tricia was caring and kind and generous to me and to everyone. My team and I have lost an incredible friend, our Labor Party has lost a warrior, our community has lost an extraordinary woman and Rebecca has lost the most amazing mamma and role model.

Remembrance Day

Mr SCOTT (Preston) (09:56): On the 11th of the 11th at 11.00 am 102 years ago the guns fell silent on the Western Front and the greatest conflict known to man up to that time ended. Around 20 million people died—10 million-odd civilians and 10 million-odd combatants, but the numbers will never truly be known. The 11th of the 11th is a time we remember, and I would like to pay tribute to all those, particularly from my local RSLs, the Darebin and Reservoir RSLs, who took a moment in a way that was different from previous years to commemorate those who have fallen. The casualties were enormous. The consequences for the world were also enormous. In many ways we still live in the shadow of the world created in World War I. The great empires with names derived from Caesar fell—the iron thrones, as they were called. The modern world was created. The League of Nations was created, which paved the way for the United Nations. And sadly in the aftermath of World War I there were additional conflicts. This was not a war that ended all wars. In fact immediately wars broke out—huge wars in which millions of people were killed in Russia, in the Balkans, in Anatolia. It was a period of great instability in places such as China during the warlord period, when many people died. It is important to remember, it is important to take stock and it is important for all of us to pay tribute to those who fell and who paved the way to create the world in which we live today.

Local government elections

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (09:57): Today I want to rise to congratulate all new and returning councillors across the Yan Yean electorate. Of course there were no elections in Whittlesea this year, but in Mitchell shire in south ward Bob Cornish, Rob Eldridge and Christine Banks, a new councillor, were elected; in central ward Louise Bannister, Nathan Clark and Annie Gobel, with Nathan and Louise being new councillors; and in north ward my great friend Rhonda Sanderson, Fiona Stevens and Bill Chisholm. In Nillumbik council: my dear friend and former CFA volunteer colleague Cr Peter Perkins was returned with an overwhelming majority, and he has now served that council for 10 years in Nillumbik; in Bunjil ward Karen Egan; in Blue Lake ward Richard Stockman; in Edendale ward the fabulous community activist Natalie Duffy; in Sugarloaf ward Ben Ramcharan; in Swipers Gully ward Frances Eyre; and in Wingrove ward there is a real character of a new councillor in Geoff Paine. I want to thank defeated councillors John Dumaresq and Grant Brooker in Nillumbik and former Mitchell shire mayor David Lowe for their community service. They will be missed. I want to congratulate everyone that put themselves forward. It is an honourable thing to put yourself forward to represent your community.

Diamond Creek Regional Playspace and Rotary Tram Cafe

Ms GREEN: I was also really pleased to visit on a number of occasions in recent weeks the Diamond Creek Regional Playspace and Rotary Tram Cafe. It is a wonderful space—come visit.

Qantas

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (09:59): I need to report that I have just been asked by the great people down at the Transport Workers Union if I will meet with Qantas workers on Monday afternoon regarding the 2500 positions that are about to be outsourced by Qantas. This is a very important subject for us all at the moment with a recession and with job losses. The short answer to my friend John Berger and all the co down there is of course I will meet with these people. I will meet with them Monday and we will talk about that. It is affecting my constituents. It is affecting all of us because Qantas is basically going to be a monopoly. Virgin is pretty well gone, so we are all going to be standing in line and we will all be still calling Australia home for quite some time.

Avila College

Mr FREGON: On a brighter note, I would also like to congratulate Avila College on receiving a $2 million grant from the Victorian Non-government Schools Capital Fund towards the building of their new Ballygriffin senior learning centre. This will be a fantastic project for the ladies of Avila College and I congratulate Dr Cotter and all of the families and students. This is something that I am very, very proud to have congratulated them on the other week.

Following statements incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 10 November:

Senior travel vouchers

Mr NORTHE (Morwell)

I rise to highlight an important issue for local senior commuters whereby the process to receive free state government public transport travel vouchers has changed dramatically. I’ve been contacted by disgruntled seniors who have just been made aware that they now have to pre-register for these vouchers, when in previous years they have been automatically allocated. Unfortunately, if a senior missed this change and failed to opt in, they have lost out and cannot receive any free tickets until September 2021. This issue needs urgent redress.

Parliament Prize

Mr NORTHE (Morwell)

I would like to acknowledge the terrific contributions from six students in my electorate who participated in this year’s Parliament Prize competition. These students from both Traralgon South and Yallourn North primary schools recorded their own 90-second members statement on a topic of their choice, and what a fabulous job they did!

So well done to:

• Isobel McAllister

Madeline Payne

Abby Riddell

Kaylen Bietman

Ellie White

Ella Whitehead.

Congratulations to all these students for participating in this competition.

Jean Tops

Mr NORTHE (Morwell)

Sadly, I wish to acknowledge the lifelong contributions of local legend and carer advocate Jean Tops. Jean was the founder and president of Gippsland Carers Association and sadly passed away on 30 October. Jean established GCA in 1997 as a carer for her daughter Moya to champion the needs of carers and their families. Jean devoted her life to not only her family but also her advocacy for the carers community. There has been in my opinion no greater or fiercer advocate than Jean, and her passion was just incredible. Jean’s legacy will continue to live on, and on behalf of our community I send my sincere condolences to Jean’s family and her network of carers and friends.

COVID-19

Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services)

With the COVID travel boundary between Melbourne and regional Victoria coming down on Sunday, 8 November, I take this opportunity to commend and thank all those members of Victoria Police and the Australian Defence Force for their tireless work in policing the numerous roadside checkpoints that were established.

Due to the outstanding collaborative contribution of both forces, the effective operation of the checkpoints was a significant factor in driving down our state’s virus numbers to zero.

As police minister, I do recognise that the work was not easy, with many difficult challenges having to be addressed by members on an ongoing basis.

No doubt one of those challenges was the key operational requirement for members to speak with individual motorists and in doing so address their various needs, stresses, questions, travel time lines and attitudes.

Of the 2 659 060 motorists checked I know that the overwhelming majority were understanding and supportive of the work being undertaken.

Of course some were not, and I commend all officers for the professional way in which they dealt with those difficult situations, in many instances under unwarranted, misinformed duress.

As a regionally based member of Parliament, I received much comment from local constituents who crossed the checkpoints on a regular basis.

The strong feedback I got from those locals was of admiration for the work being done by members, especially where they recognised the task was being carried out in inclement weather.

In total, police conducted 38 726 shifts, PSOs 480 and the ADF 12 876.

And I again thank every single one of those personnel for their tireless service in protecting the Victorian community.

Frankston rail line

Mr BURGESS (Hastings)

The Andrews government has failed Victoria in so many ways it shouldn’t be a surprise that it would also fail my community so dismally on infrastructure and in particular, public transport infrastructure, not showing even the slightest interest in their complete inability to cross the Peninsula or their reliance on a rail service that fails so often and runs so infrequently.

The commentary by the CEO of the Committee for Greater Frankston, Ginevra Hosking, in that organisation’s press release on the release of the Frankston to Baxter rail extension preliminary business case said it best:

The release of the long-awaited Frankston rail extension preliminary business case shows that woefully inadequate public transport in our region is still not being taken seriously by the state government, says the Committee for Greater Frankston.

The preliminary business case (PBC) was released on Monday 9 November by Alan Tudge, the federal Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. The PBC was prepared by the Victorian government’s Major Transport Infrastructure Authority (LXRP) using a grant from the federal Government.

Committee for Greater Frankston CEO Ginevra Hosking said …

“The failing public transport network between Frankston and Langwarrin is recognised as a nationally significant infrastructure priority by Infrastructure Australia—a top 150 project in the nation.

“But the state government’s indicative preferred option doesn’t even include a local station for the people of Frankston South, Karingal and Langwarrin effectively bypassing 37,000 Frankston City residents.

“The Victorian government was given $1.5 million of public money to create this report, which purports to be a rapid ‘cost-benefit study’ but the report clearly states that actually quantifying the project benefits was ‘out of scope’.

She said the public benefits of the Frankston rail extension had been well documented, widely disseminated through the community, and “strongly supported by our region’s major organisations”.

“The federal Coalition government and federal Opposition obviously understand the benefits as both have already committed to provide an initial $225 million towards its construction.

“It is incredibly disappointing that the state government, in the middle of its biggest-ever infrastructure construction surge, has sidelined the Frankston rail extension project …

“Taxpayer money paid for this rail extension study. We deserve a full explanation about why this project—so vital to our region—has been stopped dead in its tracks.”

I have campaigned for this critically important public transport infrastructure upgrade since 2001 and was very happy to be able to announce with former opposition leader Matthew Guy that a coalition government would match the federal government’s $225 million commitment.

There is only one body that doesn’t believe the people of my community or those of Frankston should have an effective rail system and that’s the Andrews Labor government.

Amity Care

Mr BURGESS (Hastings)

I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the great work of Amity Care Services in Somerville and in particular to general manager Kerryn Walsh and her excellent team.

The business was founded in 2019 after all three founders had been working in the home and community care industry for approximately four years.

Amity Care supports the aged, disability participants and other vulnerable people to remain within their homes and assist with capacity building to have greater community access and lead more independent lives.

Amity Care has had clients discharged directly from intensive care to their home and then supported them within their home with their loved ones close by.

Amity also offers postoperative care, respite and short-stay accommodation and holidays when able. Disabilities range from mental health to extremely complex high care.

I thank Amity Care for their care, passion and support for the most vulnerable people in our community.

Bills

Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020

Statement of compatibility

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (10:01): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020.

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

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

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (the Act) to widen the authorisations under the Act in relation to the supply of hypodermic needles and syringes and the supply, possession and administration of naloxone or other Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 poison for the treatment of opioid overdose and for other purposes.

Human rights issues

Right to life

Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. It is concerned with both the protection and preservation of life. The right has been interpreted as including an obligation on the state to refrain from conduct that results in the arbitrary deprivation of life, as well as a positive duty to introduce appropriate safeguards to minimise the risk of loss of life.

The Bill promotes and protects the right to life by introducing two key measures to minimise harms arising from the misuse of drugs of dependence.

Firstly, it authorises a person to supply hypodermic needles and syringes obtained from authorised Victorian Needle and Syringe Programs (VNSPs) to peers, with the intent of facilitating peer to peer distribution. It does this by making a further exemption to the offence provision in section 80 of the Act that prohibits inciting the commission of specified offences under the Act, relevantly, the selling or supplying of hypodermic needles or syringes. Currently under the Act, only pharmacists or VNSPs may sell or supply hypodermic needles or syringes. Pursuant to new subsection 80(8), the exemption that currently applies to pharmacists and VNSPs is extended to all persons, provided they obtain the hypodermic needle or syringe from a pharmacist or VNSP. VNSPs are authorised via an Order in Council published in the Government Gazette.

Secondly, it authorises the supply of naloxone (or other Schedule 2 or 3 opioid reversal medication) from VNSPs to peers. The intent is similarly to facilitate peer to peer distribution. It does this by including additional regulation-making powers in section 132 of the Act to authorise proposed amendments to the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2017, which will in turn will confer a power on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to make approvals authorising persons and conditions around the free supply of naloxone.

Naloxone is a drug that reverses the acute effects of opioid substances, such as heroin, morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl. In the case of an opioid overdose, when administered as soon as possible, naloxone safely and effectively reverses the effects of opioids consumed. This includes facilitating a person to breathe and eventually regain consciousness. This will allow people in the community to administer naloxone on an emergency basis before emergency services arrive. Although naloxone does not require a prescription, as a Schedule 3 poison, it is currently only available from Victorian pharmacies following a consultation with a pharmacist.

In recent years there has been a growing recognition by various governments and the community that a greater balance between traditional law enforcement and health-based responses will have a broader positive effect on the health and safety of communities. In 2015, the Victorian Parliament’s Law Reform, Road and Community Safety Committee was tasked with inquiring into the effectiveness of laws and procedures relating to illicit and synthetic drugs and prescription medication. Its recommendations included that the Victorian Government develop a new drugs strategy based on the four pillars of prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and harm reduction. In August 2018, the Victorian Government published its response to the Inquiry.

The Government’s Response included a new commitment to Victoria’s Needle Safety Program to remove the outdated restriction on peer distribution of sterile injecting equipment. This is aimed at reducing the transmission of blood-borne viruses, including the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Secondly, and with the aim of bringing Victoria into line with New South Wales and overseas jurisdictions, the Government committed to allowing health workers in registered needle and syringe programs to directly dispense naloxone to clients who are at risk of, or who may witness, an opioid overdose. The Government also committed to developing options to enhance the role of peers in naloxone programs with the aim to further enable peers to deliver valuable health interventions for the community.

Accordingly, the central objective of the proposed amendments to the Act is to reduce some harms to both individuals and the community as a result of opioid use. This is to be achieved by increasing and easing the access to measures which are known to be successful. For these reasons, I consider the Bill to promote and protect the right to life in section 9 of the Charter.

Right to be presumed innocent

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

The Bill does not create any new offences. However, the Bill does create a new exemption to a range of drug offences under the Act. Proposed section 80(8) provides an exemption for a person who sells or supplies a hypodermic needle or syringe obtained from a VNSP. Proposed section 80(9) provides that the exemption applies whether or not the hypodermic needle or syringe is sold or supplied for personal use. Pursuant to section 104 of the Act, the burden of proving any of the exemptions will lie upon the person seeking to avail themselves thereof. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Ordinarily, the presumption of innocence requires that the prosecution prove all matters beyond reasonable doubt. The creation of an exemption that involves an imposition of a burden on the accused to establish the exemption amounts to a limit under the right to be presumed innocent. However, I consider that it is reasonable and justifiable to create an exemption with a reverse burden of proof in these particular circumstances. While the courts have emphasised the importance of the presumption of innocence, they have also recognised a special class of cases arising under enactments which prohibit the doing of an act save in specified circumstances or by persons of specified classes or with specified qualifications or with the licence or permission of specified authorities. The exemption created by the Bill is to what would otherwise be criminal conduct. It does not require an accused to disprove elements of the offence; the burden of proving those elements remains on the prosecution. Rather, it is limited to the very special and narrow circumstances of the secondary sale or supply of the hypodermic needle or syringe that was first obtained from a pharmacy or other authorised source. This is a matter that is both too onerous for a prosecution to disprove, and is within the knowledge of the person selling or supplying the item. A requirement will be made by regulation that a receipt be provided by a pharmacy or other authorised person for any sale or supply of a hypodermic needle and syringe to another person, to facilitate the proof of this exception by an accused.

For the above reasons, I consider the Bill to be compatible with section 25(1) of the Charter.

Martin Foley MP

Minister for Health

Minister for Ambulance Services

Second reading

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (10:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Incorporated speech as follows:

This government has provided record support to Victoria’s alcohol and drug treatment sector and made significant reforms to reduce drug-related harm in this state. Harm reduction initiatives that acknowledge the reality of alcohol and drug use and minimise its effects on the community are a critical element of this government’s approach to drug policy in Victoria.

The reforms that will be made possible by the Bill reinforce the progressive and caring ideals that support our most vulnerable and that we as Victorians value so highly. They will deliver on important Victorian Government commitments in response to the 2018 Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Drug Law Reform, and are consistent with Coronial recommendations in recent years to enhance delivery of Victoria’s naloxone program.

This Bill has two key components. It will establish the legislative mechanism that will enable regulations to be made to expand the community’s access to naloxone, in order to reduce prevalence of opioid overdose and deaths. It will also allow peer distribution of sterile injecting equipment to prevent the transmission of blood borne diseases in people who inject drugs.

Naloxone

I will first address the Bill provisions relating to naloxone.

Naloxone is a medicine with the primary function to revive someone experiencing overdose from opioids. It can be easily administered by injection or nasal spray, cannot be misused to obtain a ‘high’ and does not affect a person who has not used opioids.

Opioid overdose deaths remain unacceptably high in Victoria. According to coronial data, 540 people died from overdose in Victoria in 2018—an increase of 58 per cent from 2010—with rates of fatality involving illicit opioids (like heroin) and pharmaceutical drugs historically high. For perspective, the current toll from drug-related deaths in Victoria now far exceeds the road toll.

Australia-wide, opioids have been the leading type of substance present in drug-induced deaths for the last 20 years, with a large proportion of these resulting from unintentional overdoses. In this context, the use of naloxone is a particularly critical intervention.

The government has long recognised the need to facilitate community access to this life-saving medicine and has proudly supported a program to subsidise its cost for people who may otherwise not be able to afford it. Funding through the Naloxone Subsidy Initiative enables Victorians to obtain naloxone at no cost from one of 19 participating needle and syringe programs across Victoria. Since the program’s inception in November 2018, there have been at least 900 reported uses of naloxone to reverse overdose.

This initiative complements the Victorian Government’s delivery of major evidence-based reforms to reduce drug-related harm, including the introduction of real-time prescription monitoring and Victoria’s first supervised injecting room in North Richmond. The success of that facility in saving lives and engaging people who use drugs with health services has validated the government’s recent announcement to proceed with a second supervised injecting room in the City of Melbourne.

While this government has removed cost as a barrier to access naloxone, we recognise that other impediments remain.

Currently, Victoria’s regulatory framework for naloxone—as with all Scheduled medicines—mirrors the Commonwealth Standard. Consequently, a person may only obtain naloxone from a health professional such as a doctor or pharmacist for their own therapeutic use and—implicitly once supplied—the person may not subsequently distribute the naloxone to another person.

The uptake of naloxone in Victoria has increased significantly since needle and syringe program providers have become the ‘front door’ for access. However, these same providers have had to adopt administratively complex processes to ensure supply is lawful, which can require a consumer to visit multiple sites to obtain naloxone. Feedback from harm reduction providers indicates that the rate of people who proceed to a pharmacy for their naloxone after first attending a needle and syringe program can be as low as 50 per cent.

Evidence from consumers, service providers, health professionals and researchers tell us strongly that naloxone needs to be accessible in a more diverse range of settings and that peer distribution is vital to maximise reach to those most vulnerable or isolated. While pharmacy access remains essential, it is important to broaden access points because people who use opioids are often reluctant or unable to engage with primary healthcare to discuss or manage their opioid use.

To overcome these barriers, and in response to the 2018 Parliamentary Inquiry into Drug Law Reform, the government committed to allowing employees of Victoria’s needle and syringe program providers to supply naloxone directly to any client of the service; that is, without need for a health professional as intermediary. In addition, given naloxone’s efficacy and low risk, the government is open to allowing other relevant services—such as alcohol and drug treatment providers—to apply for authorisation to become a primary point of supply.

The government also committed to enhancing the role of peers in naloxone programs. Again—given naloxone’s life-saving properties and negligible risk of misuse—the government is open to considering allowing naloxone, once it has been supplied, to be subsequently distributed by any person to any other person. This would allow peers to be actively involved in the distribution chain in order to get naloxone into the hands of the people most in need—but least able—to obtain it.

To achieve these objectives, the Bill will create a new power in the Act enabling regulations to be made regarding the classes of people authorised to supply, possess, administer and use naloxone, in addition to currently approved suppliers such as pharmacies. Authorisation of additional suppliers will be subject to any conditions the approver—likely to be the Secretary to the Department of Health and Human Services or their delegate—thinks fit, such as measures to ensure people supplying naloxone are adequately informed about when and how to use naloxone and convey this information to the recipient.

Detailed policy and procedural guidelines will be developed to support operation of the amending regulations, as well as a public communications strategy to support widespread community understanding of the regulatory changes.

These amendments will help to ensure that a medicine that is safe and proven to prevent deaths and injury from opioid overdose is as readily available in the community as possible, positioning Victoria as a national leader in the fight to prevent opioid-related harm. These reforms respond to a known and present crisis in this state, but also prepare us for any significant escalation in harms from the market infiltration of highly potent opioids like fentanyl, as has tragically unfolded in North America.

A corollary of these reforms will be to reduce stigma relating to the use of drugs. Steps to enhance access to naloxone in conjunction with this government’s broader harm reduction agenda reflect society’s growing understanding that we must approach drug use as a health issue, rather than one solely subject to law enforcement. The proposals in the Bill will help to further normalise public perceptions of the provision of naloxone and the response to overdose incidents as matters of public health akin to the use of an ‘epi-pen’ for anaphylaxis or a defibrillator for cardiac arrest.

Sterile injecting equipment

The other key component of the Bill relates to the provision of free sterile injecting equipment through Victoria’s needle and syringe program.

This program helps to prevent the sharing and reuse of needles and syringes among people who inject drugs, in turn lowering risks of blood borne virus transmission in the community and the risk to individuals of infection from reusing needles.

Currently it is an offence under Victorian legislation to supply this equipment other than by a pharmacist or an organisation authorised to participate in the needle and syringe program. This makes it an offence for a person who obtains sterile injecting equipment from an authorised needle and syringe program to distribute the equipment to another person.

While current controls are intended to facilitate engagement of consumers with health services, they have the perverse effect of impeding safe injecting practices, in turn risking increased prevalence of other acute health problems. This undermines the otherwise vital role of needle and syringe programs to reduce harm. Studies have shown that since the inception of programs in Australia to facilitate community access to free sterile injecting equipment, tens of thousands of transmissions of HIV and Hepatitis C have been averted, while saving more than four dollars in healthcare costs for every dollar spent.

Despite current laws in Victoria, it is understood to be a commonly accepted practice for people to obtain sterile injecting equipment on behalf of others. For example, an individual peer may collect sterile injecting equipment for a group of peers intending to inject drugs. While technically in breach of the Act, this is recognised as a highly valuable practice in curbing blood borne virus transmissions to people who may not be able to access a health service directly.

Creating an exception in the Act such that it will no longer be an offence for a person to give sterile injecting equipment to someone else will:

• legitimise an existing and effective harm reduction practice

• support the government’s commitment to eliminate transmissions of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) and eliminate hepatitis B and C as public health concerns by 2030

• bring Victorian legislation in this area into line with other Australian jurisdictions.

Victorian alcohol and drug service providers have strongly agitated for changes to improve access to naloxone and sterile injecting equipment. I am proud to be part of a government that listens to the community and responds appropriately, in this case building on its long-standing support to facilitate access to these essential and life-saving harm reduction products.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (10:03): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 26 November.

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr CARROLL:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (10:03): The number of lives lost on Victorian roads in 2019 was 267. This was a 25 per cent increase. It was the highest road toll we had seen since 2016, when we had 290. Fatalities amongst the age group of 18 to 20 had doubled in 2019 compared to 2018, and the incidents resulting in the death of a cyclist have increased by over 50 per cent. These are shocking figures on roads in Victoria, particularly in that age group between 18 and 20, when you see a doubling of young people’s lives gone on the roads—and most times because of senseless acts or because a young person who is probably more willing to take a risk does not have the ability to control a vehicle or to control what they are driving. That is a really big concern.

We think it is very important when we are talking about young people to say that we are big supporters—and we want to get it on record that we are big supporters—of the 120 hours of driving for all learners. It was a very big concern when the government came out and spoke about the fact that one of the ways they could look at getting learners through to their P-plates at a faster rate, in a quicker time, after the COVID virus was to reduce the amount of hours from the 120 hours. And if you consider how the government talk about the COVID virus and how their response was based on scientific and medical advice, you would hope that they would use that same philosophy when they talk about the 120 hours in young people’s lives as we approach the changes we need to make to ensure that we can get people through to their learners and P-plates in the quickest possible time—but never against the advice that is already there or the evidence that is on the table that the 120 hours is so important.

Many in this house either have had or will in the future have children go through the stage where they are doing their learners. For those who have had or will in the future have that experience, I am sure when your child goes out for the first time driving on their own the concern that will play on your mind will be the risks of what could happen out there. When you hear about 18- to 20-year-olds dying at double the rate of other drivers in just one year, it is something that you genuinely get concerned about. Fatal accidents in rural and regional Victoria accounted for the highest rate and the highest share of the road toll increase in Victoria. This is a huge concern when you compare that with Melbourne, considering that 135 of the 267 lives lost, or 50 per cent, were in regional Victoria, in spite of the fact that only 24 per cent of the population lives outside of Melbourne.

We used to see the ads on TV about how country people die on country roads. It is never more important than now that we remind people how very important it is that when you are in control of a vehicle you do have to take care. But it is also important to make sure that people are aware that one of the causes of these accidents is actually poor-quality roads. Some of the roads in Victoria now, particularly out in western Victoria—and I have got the member for South-West Coast here—have potholes that are so large that people actually joke that they have not got potholes that might damage your tyres, they have got potholes that might break your car. Some of the potholes out through the west are that big, and it is a major concern to every person using those roads. The people who use those roads are not just country people, they are people on holidays, people travelling around. But it is country people who are using them for work, to go to school, to just go about their everyday lives and to ensure that food gets onto plates throughout Victoria and obviously that our economy keeps going.

When we are talking about the road toll over the last few years, one of the biggest changes we have seen is the Andrews government deciding to rip $2.9 billion out of the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) to hold up their budget. What we should have seen happen with that $2.9 billion is an investment in road safety, in road improvement and in new technology so that we can get younger people on the roads more safely. We should be seeing young people being educated about road safety, either within the education system or by other ways and means so that they are safer when they get on the roads. The government will talk about the fact that they have spent a lot of money on young people and about what they have done in improving the amount of time they can have within the education system learning to drive and learning about what can and cannot happen when you are driving. However, what we do know is that a lot of that money was spent in the Melbourne Museum putting up a display which most of those young people will probably never visit.

I know for a fact that we actually need to go back to square one and start to look at how we deal with the road toll, not just in Melbourne but out in the regions as well. That could have been where the $2.9 billion would have been better invested. I put it to you that the $2.9 billion would have been an investment—an investment in the future. If we could reduce the road toll, if we could reduce the number of young people who are dying on the roads and if we could reduce the number of accidents, you would see the savings in the long term. If we invest in roads, making them safer, the return on that investment will not just be in lives, it will be in a financial return to the state with less people going to hospital and less people claiming on the TAC in the future. It is something that we really need to do.

The other thing that we are very concerned to see happen, which we would ask the minister to definitely have a look at in this government, is the reinstatement of the parliamentary Road Safety Committee. Given the road toll has increased, the removal of a committee that was designed around road safety is something that sent around shockwaves. It was a committee that had bipartisan support from all people in this Parliament for a long period of time—and it worked. If you go back over the history of what the Road Safety Committee did and look around the world, you would actually see that we have gone from over 1000 deaths on the roads annually to 267 last year. While it is still a bad year with 267 deaths, when you compare that to 1000 you can obviously see the results of the committee’s recommendations, such as the compulsory wearing of seat belts—something that everybody in this house would swear by. It is very, very important. That committee would also change rules and legislation and make recommendations to the federal government around the conditions and safety equipment in vehicles these days.

My first car was a beautiful Mitsubishi Sigma, blue in colour with more rust than actual paint. I got pulled over once for doing, I think, about 22 kilometres over the limit. I laughed at the police officer because there is no way in the world my car did 22 kilometres over the limit. It was a Sigma; it did not go 80 kilometres an hour uphill. Now, the difference between that car and what I drive today—I am driving a Hyundai i30—is a huge world of difference, with airbag safety, ABS, IRS and brake assistance. The car will stop if someone walks in front of my car. There are all these safety elements on a vehicle now. Tyres are made better; the wall structure is made stronger. Everything on cars now is designed around avoiding an accident, and that is part of the reason our road toll will continue to fall, but we need recommendations around those road safety measures to make them compulsory on cars. Whilst the car companies will design them, it is up to parliaments to make the recommendations to make our place a safer place to drive, and that includes making cars safer.

I am not sure if the member for Melton will speak on this, but I am sure many times in his time as a paramedic he went out to accidents where an airbag had saved someone’s life, where a seatbelt was the difference. I know it myself as a police officer. The member for Frankston is a former firefighter who has gone out to car accidents where the difference would have been a seatbelt but someone opted not to wear it. And that is what this Road Safety Committee is about—it is actually to go and review what is and is not happening. If we have legislation in place like seatbelts and people are not abiding by that, we could then go back with the Road Safety Committee and maybe design an education program, because at the end of the day it is not just about the fine. It is how we change and restructure the way people think.

We can go back to my parents. I should not say it, but drink driving was a bit more acceptable pre me. The Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, who is at the table, is nodding. I know example after example—my dad will yell at me; he lives in Queensland, he will ring me up shortly—of times when we would hop in the car coming back from the progressive dinner parties they used to have and they would have a few drinks at house one and then drive to house two, and on the way home you would be on the wrong side of the road and one of the kids in the back would go, ‘Dad, you’re on the wrong side of the road’, and he would respond with, ‘I’m just checking what’s coming the other way’. It is a whole world of difference. When my brother was very, very young my old man had a Sandman. Everybody loves a Sandman. I will not work out how my brother eventuated, but the safety measure there was they put a pole across the back of the Sandman and hooked a little kid seat on it, and that is where they put him while driving. We know today that is so not acceptable. We have changed. We actually talk about now, when we are talking about car seats for kids, not only putting the seat in but going and getting it professionally installed, because a seat that is not professionally installed can be as dangerous as not having a seat in there at all.

I think it is really important that that is an education message, not just a legislation message, and that is why we had the Road Safety Committee. I would actually say to the minister and to the Premier: if you genuinely want to get the discussion going around road safety, whilst I understand you are in government and as a government you have the opportunity to do as you please—I totally understand that and the votes through this house—not all good ideas will sit on one side of the chamber when it comes to road safety. There has to be an opportunity, an open discussion, and I honestly believe the way to do that is to reintroduce the Road Safety Committee and make it a bipartisan committee and bring together some of the minds in this place, the connections in this place and some of the best minds in our emergency services with RACV, with other road organisations and with the Australian Road Research Board. There are so many organisations out there that would be willing to sit down with governments and with oppositions and make recommendations on how we could improve road safety in Victoria.

We heard the other day the road safety camera commissioner come out speaking around speed cameras and some of the concerns raised around speed cameras. Speed cameras are an important tool used in preventing road deaths in Victoria; I accept that. They are an important tool, but they must be fair and people must have faith and trust in them. We have seen a few reports that would raise questions on some of the trust and faith in them.

I know just recently again the commissioner has come out and spoken specifically about the ones on the West Gate Bridge—on infrastructure that does move, that is designed to move. When it moves it can make a difference on the impact if it is a stationary camera. He believes—and this is supported, from what I have read—that it should be going back to the point-to-point cameras and we should see more point to point cameras around Victoria. It is those ideas that could come back to our committee for recommendations on how to best do that within Victoria to have the best outcome that we can. We also say that with that $2.9 billion we could have invested in fixing country roads, with the conditions the worst they have been, the worst we have seen, in regional Victoria.

I will finish up by talking about some of the issues and some of the money that has been wasted with the integration of VicRoads into the Department of Transport. First and foremost, I have spoken to a few people from VicRoads, and the one thing I am very pleased about when I speak to VicRoads is that they genuinely have road safety as a front-of-mind thought. When you go into the department they are thinking about road safety. They genuinely want to have the best outcomes. They know not everything works perfectly and that there has been some mismanagement since this government has come in with VicRoads, with the oversight and the funding, and we have seen some of the issues with the state road network, but they do generally have things in place.

Because of the waste of funds by this government in the transfer of VicRoads into the Department of Transport, we have seen an opportunity missed for a real investment in the future. That includes things in IT projects. There is no reason today why we cannot have road testing, particularly around learners testing and P-platers, online. There is no reason we cannot do that other than the fact that the government has failed to invest in it, and the government should be investing in it. They should be putting money into it. They should be ensuring that we have the opportunities now.

What we saw recently was the government coming out kicking and screaming around the fact that we are saying that young people should have the opportunity to do licensing testing online. The government came out and said, ‘We will look at it’. After they said they would look at it, the minister went on air and said, ‘We’ll have it done very, very shortly’, and then after we asked questions around that we found out what ‘shortly’ means; shortly means sometime next year, after we have already gone through a lot of the issues here.

But there are opportunities available right now. I would ask the government: have you investigated if there is an opportunity to have road driving testing in TAFEs? TAFEs have forklift licences. They have the testing facilities available and the equipment available for forklift licensing. Has the government investigated how it could work with VicRoads to put staff in there to ensure the integrity and security of the system, to work within the available units? We have got TAFEs all over Victoria that have got many, many places with computers. They could put through a higher number of people in a shorter period of time. What would that mean? That would mean 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds who have been waiting long enough already would have the opportunity to do their testing online in a secure environment that still protects the integrity of the system and that has the right staff there. But we cannot do that, because this government has failed to invest in it.

It is those things that would mean we could get people on the road sooner. There are people out there who know that if they wait until they are 21 years old—after waiting for a period of time—they can then go on after this and get their licence without doing any hours. You can wait until you are 21, get your learners—with no hours limit on it—and go and get your licence. That is not good enough. We have got to have safety on the roads, and the best way to do that is to make it easier for people to get their licences now. They are the opportunities that we have missed out on, which the government has the chance to do now.

In wrapping up I will quickly go back to the discussion I had yesterday. This government needs to very seriously look at what it is trying to do with the licence plates in Victoria. The licence plate system in Victoria has worked for a long period of time. What they are now doing is putting at risk the investments of a lot of people in the state who had taken confidence from government in the past—and hopefully will in the future—that they could invest in numberplates. It is at risk with some of them. If they are willing to put their money up, that is fine.

The other part of this is around the crossings. We need to have genuine consultation with not just the Victorian Farmers Federation but farmers around Victoria to ensure that they are not jeopardised by this legislation. So on that note, as I said, we will not oppose the bill here but we will be working on what we are going to do in consultation between this place and the upper house. On that, we are not opposed.

Ms WARD (Eltham) (10:19): I rise very happily to speak on this Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I thank the member opposite for his contribution, but I will raise his Sigma. My 1968 Mazda probably rattled a little bit more than his Sigma, but my best car was my Volkswagen fastback because at least the battery was under the back seat, and of course the back seat was never going to catch fire there. At least the mechanics of it were very easy to change—spark plugs and the rest of it.

Members interjecting.

Ms WARD: My fastback took me all through the Grampians and elsewhere. It was a pretty good car actually. But no, it did not have the safety measures that we currently have.

I thank the member for the amount of time that he has spent discussing this bill and the work that he has put into understanding this bill, but I would like to put a couple of facts on the table and help him understand a bit more of this legislation that he clearly has not understood. Those opposite would have you believe that the reforms to the release of custom plates in the future will have an effect on the rights of persons that own custom plates that have already been issued. This is fundamentally wrong. Clause 22 of the bill makes it very clear that the amendments made by the bill, if passed:

… do not apply to the registration number rights sold before the commencement of that section; and

… do not apply to any non-standard number plates or replacement non-standard number plates issued before the commencement of that section.

It is pretty clear. You have just got to get going down through the clauses.

Those opposite would also have you believe that this is a tax grab. We have never heard those opposite throw that up before when they have come to criticise any aspects of policies that any Labor government has brought forward! I would have thought they would have come up with something more original than a tax grab. People are not forced to purchase custom plates. Plates are issued at cost to persons that register their vehicles so that they can be used on public roads. People have the option to purchase custom plates. Some people are willing to pay to get what they want. A range of different products are on offer and a range of different prices already apply. As the member indicated, some of them can be upwards of $1 million.

It is true that this raises revenue for the government. These funds are deposited in the roads fund. We had the member talk about wanting to have improved safety on our roads and improved investment in our roads, this is one such mechanism that helps that investment occur. It is reinvested in the roads system to provide infrastructure and services that road users want and that road users need, and services that car enthusiasts want—the very same people that are willing to pay for custom plates in the first place. Those opposite want you to believe that this is wrong, that the government should not implement the pricing structure and approach that raises revenue to be invested in the roads system. Instead they argue that it is more in the public interest to allow people to speculate on the value of plates, sell them through private auctions and pocket the profits. How does this benefit the community? How does this benefit the road infrastructure that those very people are using with their cars? This is the ideology of those opposite.

The shadow minister claims that when he was briefed on the proposal to establish processes and powers to close occupational crossings the government and department representatives did not know how many of those crossings existed. It is known that approximately 1700 of these crossings were originally established when the rail network was created in the 1800s. I am advised that what was said in the briefing is that a comprehensive up-to-date register of the crossings that continue to exist is not available but the existence of these crossings and the extent to which they pose a safety risk in railway operations is undertaken on a case-by-case basis as projects are scoped and developed. It is reasonable to not quote numbers when there are matters of fact that need to be determined. This is not incompetence, this is not a lack of knowledge; this is being honest. It is just working through intersections as they need to be worked through. I understand the shadow minister did not find the time to actually attend the briefing. Perhaps if he had been able to, he might have been able to ask those questions and get a clearer understanding of the methodology that is used.

One of the reasons why a comprehensive, up-to-date register does not exist is because the obligations for the state to maintain these crossings only exists—remember these are on private land, these crossings—if there is a continuity of land ownership on either side of the rail line and there is no substantial change to the use of crossings over time. In accordance with the legislative provisions established in 1869—just over 100 years before I was born and since a number of the people here were born, including you and you, just—once the land on both sides of an occupied crossing ceases to be owned by the same person the occupation crossing right is terminated.

Further, if the change of use of the crossing occurs and/or substantially increases the burden on the crossing, the crossing is permitted to be terminated. For example, when a business has been established on one side of the crossing that now requires additional vehicular movements across the crossing, the right is automatically terminated. These are matters that must be considered when determining whether an occupational crossing right continues to exist. Those opposite would have you believe that the government is going to make decisions on whether crossings will be closed without consultation. This is just fundamentally wrong and indicates that those opposite have not read the bill in its entirety and have certainly not looked at the bill in enough measure to fully understand what the intention of the bill is.

An important point I will make is that the proposed process and power set out in the bill will only apply to private crossings where there is an operational or safety concern relating to development of the rail line. Where a property is affected there will be proper consultation with landowners, and the land compensation provisions of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 apply. The bill provides for proper consultation and compensation. Any proposed crossing closure will give rise to a right of compensation for financial loss suffered as a result of the closure and it will also consider any diminution of market value. This is all set out in the bill.

It includes amendments to assist in the delivery of our Big Build projects, and this is something that is incredibly important to us on this side of the chamber—investing in these Big Build projects that help create the jobs that this state needs and will need so much more because of this global pandemic that we have experienced. It includes $17 billion being harvested in 100 road and rail projects. This includes the 75 level crossings that we are getting rid of, 43 of which are already gone and 20 of which are underway. This includes things like duplicating the Hurstbridge line, something that I have been working for for so many years. As a young person using the train line I would have loved to have seen extra services, and I know that Acting Speaker Carbines here shares with me in the joy at the work that has been going on on the Hurstbridge line thanks to this government. He saw the getting rid of the Rosanna level crossing, which has fundamentally changed that strip and the way that we go up and down Lower Plenty Road, and the duplication of the rail line between Heidelberg and Rosanna, which has allowed Hurstbridge stage 2 to commence.

This is over $500 million of rail investment across communities that will increase the services on the Hurstbridge line along the whole length of the line from the city all the way to Hurstbridge. This is a game changer for connectivity in my community, and I am looking forward to the 6- to 7-minute services from Greensborough station, the 10-minute services from Monty and Eltham stations and the 20-minute services from Hurstbridge, Wattle Glen and Diamond Creek stations. It is going to create jobs—so many jobs. It is going to create connectivity. It is going to give people more choices and more options around getting on the train and getting on public transport and moving around our city.

This investment in infrastructure is a key part of our recovery from the economic damage of COVID-19. This bill helps us continue to create more jobs and deliver unprecedented transport solutions. We have seen that the Metro Tunnel is halfway through works. This is a fundamental change in the way that we will move around the CBD. This means that someone from my community in the outer suburbs can actually easily get public transport to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, to the Royal Children’s Hospital, to Melbourne University. Cutting down transport time, making it easier to get around, reducing our reliance on cars and giving us a transport system that brings us into a modern age are things that we so desperately need and that we did not see in the four years of those opposite. We saw flags at Spencer Street station promising airport rail that never got delivered. This is the government that is actually delivering on transport commitments. I commend the bill.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (10:29): I rise to make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill provides for 58 amendments to transport legislation to improve its operation and, in the case of amendments to the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Road Management Act 2004 and the Rail Management Act 1996, to enable and support Victoria’s extensive transport infrastructure development and works program, and that is where I want to spend my time contributing to this debate—those particular projects.

When I think about the projects that are being done in Victoria, I would like to think that there is also thought given to the actual operators—whether they are truck operators or train operators, the people that actually use the transport network from a freight point of view—and particularly to the taxpayer as to whether there is value for those projects as well. One of the issues that has been raised with me regularly in my office is from road transport operators who operate particularly A-double trucks but also B-double trucks, and it is that to actually get to utilise their trucks on a particular road they have to go to VicRoads now and apply for a permit. It is a desktop process that VicRoads goes through to say that the bridges are up to standard to take that particular A-double or B-double truck, but the transport operator pays anywhere between $1100 and $1600 for each application they put in to get a permit to run on a particular road. It is effectively a tax grab from the government, a revenue raiser by VicRoads.

I have the classic example of Kagome, the tomato processing plant in Echuca, which pulls up a lot of tomatoes near Lake Boga near Swan Hill. They changed transport operators from one trucking company to another so the new trucking company had to apply for permits to run their A-double trucks on the Murray Valley Highway, the same as the previous trucking operator did. Nothing changed. The road is the same, the configuration of the trucks, the weight limits of the trucks, everything is the same, but that new trucking operator had to go through a tortuous process to actually get VicRoads approval to run those trucks. Because VicRoads said they were too busy, they could not process those permits in a timely manner, and there was a real risk that the tomato harvest would have started and they would not have had permits to run down the Murray Valley Highway. If we are talking about the integration of transport projects, let us bear in mind the users of the roads and make sure they actually have the ability to use the roads properly.

I raised in my constituency question earlier in the week the fact that because some bridges are now not A-double rated, A-double trucks are being put on category B and category C roads that are not up to scratch to handle those sorts of trucks. A classic example of that is Prairie-Rochester Road, which now has huge holes in the middle of it and which now has big drop-offs on the side of narrow bitumen where trucks are having to pass. It is also a school bus route, and it has become very, very dangerous for all the people that live in that vicinity, who are constantly having cracked and broken windscreens and damage to the front of their vehicles because of the rocks and the broken bitumen that are thrown up as those trucks go through. The government needs to consider how it is going to actually make sure that those road users get access to permits without having to pay a lot of money. Trucking companies now effectively have staff full time dealing with permits to go on roads rather than having designated roads that trucking operators know they can go down with a B-double or with an A-double without having to apply for permits for every single trip they do.

The other issue I would like to touch on as we talk about the integration of transport projects here in Victoria is the report that came out last week from the Grattan Institute, which talks about the need to actually have some accountability around these projects, the fact that there have been huge cost blowouts—billions and billions of dollars in cost blowouts—on these projects and the fact that there needs to be a proper process within government about how projects are assessed and started. The Grattan Institute talks about the fact that projects that are announced before there is a detailed business case and before there are detailed costings are the projects that are actually blowing out by the most amount of money. We have seen a classic example of that with the Suburban Rail Loop. The Grattan Institute talks about it being one of those said projects where there has been an announcement—it is supposedly a $50 billion project over the next 30 years—but there is no detailed business case behind it, and it is a project that will cost a hell of a lot more than the $50 billion that has been talked about. It also talks about the fact that there needs to be constant disclosure and updating of the taxpayers of Victoria as these projects progress rather than waiting for a public company to actually have to do a report to the stock exchange saying that there is a variation in their ability to do that project. Let us have some continuous reporting from the Minister of Transport Infrastructure and/or from the Treasurer about what is happening with taxpayers money here in Victoria.

Also there effectively needs to be a detailed assessment post the contract of actually what happened with that project, and if there were cost overruns or time overruns that needs to be actually reported to the taxpayer. A classic example of where we would actually like to see a detailed assessment of a project that has been totally botched by the Minister for Transport Infrastructure is the Murray Basin rail project. That once-in-a-generation opportunity to upgrade and standardise the rail lines of north-west Victoria has dismally failed—it has absolutely dismally failed. How a minister, how a government, how a department could so mismanage and botch a project is almost beyond comprehension, particularly for those people that live in the region and understand how you actually go about doing your work. They watched I suppose in horror as the works on that project unravelled in north-west Victoria. The original intent, which the minister took great credit for back in 2015, was that only an Andrews Labor government could deliver this project. Well, it would appear that only an Andrews Labor government could botch this project so very, very badly.

There was $440 million to upgrade and standardise those railway lines in north-west Victoria. We have ended up with the majority of the money being expended with only the Mildura to Maryborough and the Maryborough to Ararat lines being standardised. The Maryborough to Ararat line in particular used second-hand rail—second-hand rail from the old Castlemaine line that was decades old. The two types of steel do not weld together well. That particular line now has to be redone and it is just an absolute disgrace. The Sea Lake and Manangatang lines have not been done. The minister has publicly released a few pages from the supposed business case she submitted to the commonwealth government for this project, and it is effectively only to get the money from the commonwealth to fix up the mess they have made of the project on the Mildura to Maryborough and Maryborough to Ararat lines and to re-rail that particular project. It says nothing about actually standardising the Manangatang or Sea Lake lines. It actually talks about a close-out part of this project, which I think is absolutely devastating to all the freight operators in north-west Victoria.

I urge the minister to put a line item in the budget on 24 November when it comes before this house to demonstrate to the commonwealth that the Victorian government actually has faith in this project and is not just relying on the commonwealth to pick up the tab to fix up a very, very botched project. Having standard gauge lines and having broad gauge lines will lead to even more inefficiency in the transport system. When you are running two different train sets, you do not get the economy of scale or the timely turnaround of trains to the various ports, and it still leaves the Manangatang and the Sea Lake lines blocked out of the port of Portland, which is one of our natural deepwater ports for grain shipments. As anyone in the grains industry would know, boats that go into Geelong cannot always fill up to their maximum load because the draught is too shallow, so they onload two-thirds or three-quarters of their load in Geelong and then call in at Portland to top up. If those lines were done, if all the lines were standardised and if the line to Portland was upgraded from 19-tonne axle weight to 21- or 23-tonne axle weight, you could actually have whole ships being loaded in Portland, which would lead to some real efficiency for the grains industry in north and west Victoria and would assist in taking trucks off the roads running to Portland, because that is effectively how the majority of grain gets to Portland at the moment.

With this particular bill I do not believe the government is actually thinking about the transport operators or the freight operators in Victoria. They are only thinking about how they can make life simpler for themselves and in a lot of cases more complicated for everyone else in Victoria.

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (10:39): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. Let me tell you, the Andrews Labor government is totally thinking about the people of the west, and in particular my electorate of St Albans. Since we formed government, we have not wasted a moment in getting into action. As part of the 43 level crossing removals we saw the most dangerous level crossing in Victoria at Main Road in St Albans removed once and for all by the Andrews Labor government.

This had many decades of debate, but it was only our government that took action to remove and build a brand new station at St Albans. We also saw the removal of the Furlong Road level crossing and a brand new station complementing not only the locals but also the healthcare workers at Sunshine hospital and the new Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital, and this is thanks to our government. Ginifer station on its own has 23 000 passengers each day, so it just tells you how popular this station is after the massive improvements that have happened since we have been elected in building a new station and making it much more accessible not only for the locals but also for the healthcare workers at Joan Kirner. At the moment we are about to open the brand new $34 million emergency department at Sunshine. It is multilevel, including a dedicated children’s area at the emergency department. So let me say this bill and our election commitments have been delivered absolutely. We have accelerated Victoria’s Big Build, and as I said, the electorate of St Albans and the west have seen such great investments since we have been elected.

The bill primarily deals with the implementation and the acceleration of the Big Build. Approximately $70 billion of infrastructure projects are being delivered—I have just spoken of a couple in my electorate, but I will proceed to speak on a number of other exciting projects. It will provide 15 000 jobs, and that is absolutely critical to the heart of Victoria—providing job opportunities for locals and Victorians. We are making sure that these amendments will ensure local infrastructure can be transferred to local government and that VicTrack can enter into long-term leases of Crown land for rail purposes. Building transport infrastructure delivers not only for the west but also for our city and regional Victoria. Supporting and creating good jobs is what is needed. Improving the quality of public transport connecting Victorians is absolutely an integral part of this government.

Now to the Suburban Rail Loop: let me say, for example, if I am travelling from Sunshine, I will be able to make my way through the loop and through the railway corridor to the seat of Mordialloc and do a tour to the seat of Ivanhoe as well, making it much more effective and quick. And as part of the turn-up-and-go system the trains will be high-tech. Again, we are creating over 20 000 jobs.

I want to talk about the biggest national project, I believe, that will happen, and that is the airport rail link—absolutely. In the heart of Sunshine—and I am very proud to say Sunshine will become not only the heart of the west but also the heart of Melbourne—we will build the super-hub station. It will link the nation’s largest transport infrastructure project, connecting Melbourne and regional Victoria through Sunshine and making its way to Melbourne Airport via a super-station. Let me say this will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not only for my locals but also for Victorians, because not only are we going to be creating jobs—over 18 000 jobs—but we are connecting, again, Victorians and the west through Melbourne Airport to the world. I am absolutely excited to see this project. We have already seen a commitment of $5 billion from our government and $5 billion from the national government as well to make sure that this project commences next year, and I am sure we are going to hear a lot more in the coming weeks in relation to this project.

Projects we have already delivered as part of the Big Build include the EJ Whitten Bridge. This is infrastructure that carries 200 000 drivers across each day, linking to the Tullamarine Freeway and of course to the north. We have been able to increase the lanes to five lanes each way and, let me say, as I travel into the city each day—when I am travelling to Parliament that is—30 minutes is taken off peak-hour journeys. But most importantly, again, that project itself created over 1000 jobs. We have seen the Tullamarine Freeway widened, and that has been really important infrastructure for us from the west that travel into town and also to the other side of the city. We will see as part of the Big Build the Albion substation upgrade. That is $2.1 billion on the Sunbury line, upgrading through and making sure that we have a super-fast line through this corridor.

But most importantly, I know my residents at Ardeer were absolutely super excited when they heard about the fast-tracking of the removal of the Fitzgerald Road level crossing. That is just going to do wonders. A lot of my residents are stuck at the Ardeer boom gates for 45 per cent of morning peak. That is just unacceptable. And not only are we removing Fitzgerald Road but we are also removing Robinsons Road and Mount Derrimut Road as well in Deer Park, so three level crossings that are close to one another. It makes sense to remove the two at the same time. The crossing, as I said, has been fast-tracked this year thanks to our government, and building and construction will start soon.

I have spoken about the airport rail link, the Suburban Rail Loop and of course the West Gate Tunnel and the metro rail link, which is just fantastic infrastructure. We are not only delivering for the west but also into our city and making sure that we have not only the public transport infrastructure for today but public transport infrastructure for the future. I think that is where this sort of investment and vision has only been created by the Andrews Labor government, and I am absolutely proud to be part of it.

Before the 2014 election, for four years we did not actually see any projects, I can tell you, in the seat of St Albans. There were no projects. Even though we had one of the most dangerous level crossings in the state, we only saw a bit of chalk on that Main Road level crossing. Nothing was done until we actually got into government. There have been so many deaths on Main Road level crossing, so many deaths. It took our government to get on and remove that as our first act. Main Road and Furlong Road level crossings are part of the 43 level crossings removed so far. I mean, that has just changed the landscape of St Albans. Not only has it made it safer, not only has it created jobs but it has also, as I said, changed the landscape, connected two communities that were divided by a dangerous level crossing and connected major hospitals—the Sunshine Hospital and the Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital—and the Victoria University St Albans campus by having a brand new station, the Ginifer station, connecting all those workers and locals together. That is what this has done, and this has been part of the Big Build.

So I would like to acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Public Transport and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. This bill is great legislation and lasting legislation. It accelerates the implementation of the Big Build projects. This will boost jobs and keep our economy moving; that is fundamental. And we will be delivering on our visionary futureproofing infrastructure that will last for many generations to come.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (10:49): I rise to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. This is a bill that has about 58 amendments in it. I obviously will not be concentrating on all 58, but there are some that I see that are good.

Mr Richardson interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: Why not? I do not have long enough. But there are some that I have concerns about, so I will begin by making reference to the second-reading speech given by the Minister for Roads and Road Safety when introducing the bill. He says that the objective of the bill is to:

… support the delivery of Big Build projects …

I would like to start by making reference to that. There was a report released last week by the Grattan Institute which makes some comments that I think are worth noting, and they are that governments must rethink their megaprojects—those with a price tag topping $1 billion—as they search for infrastructure-led coronavirus recovery or risk delivering a herd of white elephants. It goes on to note that the Victorian government’s biggest projects, North East Link, West Gate Tunnel and Metro Tunnel rail link, will cost between them at least $11 billion more than originally promised. This is really concerning, because we have got big projects and we have got a government that cannot manage projects without blowing them out. When taxpayers are facing a post-pandemic time when we have got to get the state back on its feet, that is most concerning. But the part I wanted to focus on here, relevant to the bill, is that taxpayers would get a bigger bang for their buck if politicians steered clear of what they call ‘nation-building’ and ‘city-shaping’ megaprojects and instead spent more on upgrading existing infrastructure.

Now in that case, with two weeks until the budget, I hope the government is thinking seriously about the state of our road network, in the regions particularly. It is broken. The roads are in a disastrous state, particularly in my electorate of South-West Coast. So I implore the government to take note of those recommendations from that report and invest significantly in the roads. This is probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity coming up, with the amount of money that the government have made clear they are going to be spending and borrowing to get Victoria back on its feet. There is clear evidence that for jobs in the region, for better outcomes, we need our trucks on roads that are built to the needs, to the demands, of a modern community that needs transport that can get product to market and get kids safely to school and families safely to work and home again. What we have got is an opportunity to do that.

The other thing I implore the government to consider is to not only put a massive injection into our regional roads and the maintenance of those and upgrading of those but to make sure that the processes are in place to ensure that the job is done well once and we do not see what we are seeing in the regions—and our community are well aware of this—that these roads are breaking down within a matter of weeks to months.

So I again implore the government to listen to the community. They are not fooled by the spin-doctoring that says, ‘Look what we are doing in regional roads’. They are driving on them every day. They have had enough. If you are going to put a lot of money into the economy, listen to the Grattan Institute and also Infrastructure Victoria: they both say, ‘Get out there, fix the regional roads’. It is going to be good for our economy and good for our exporters, and therefore good for the state.

I will now go to the section of the bill that talks about the rail crossings. This is where I am a little concerned, because in the briefing that we received from the government they actually said that there was no knowledge in the department of how many private rail crossings there are. So in the bill in clause 7 they want to insert a division 1B after division 1A of part 4 of the Rail Management Act 1996 to provide for new powers for the secretary to close private crossings and acquire land adjoining private crossings where required and to provide for associated compensation processes. Now, in the second-reading speech the minister said that there are very few or a limited number of private crossings, yet in the briefing what we heard was that there is no knowledge of that and they will only find that out as they do their due diligence. So these corridors on private land originate from a period when the rail corridor was first created. He went on to say that:

The State will also be able to acquire surplus land, and the compensation process will include this land. Alternative access may—

so that is not a guarantee—

also be provided if it is feasible to do so.

This is really concerning. You have got farmers who have these private crossings on their land, and they will be absolutely implicated in any change and not necessarily aware of this.

I am concerned that in the briefing we were told there was not a comprehensive list, as I said, nor where these crossings are or in fact if there really is any intent to create a list with that knowledge. The fact that the minister is saying in the second-reading speech that there is a limited number is interesting, as is the fact that the member Eltham said there were 1700, which is absolutely not what was provided to us in the briefing. They said they did not know and that there was no intent to find those assets and to make a list.

The Warrnambool line has been earmarked for upgrades thanks to funding from the federal government, who are providing 90 per cent of the cost of that project. Although what we have seen is the Minister for Transport Infrastructure going out there claiming all of the credit for it, which is completely wrong and false. Vast sections of the Warrnambool line beyond Geelong run through private farming land, and I am concerned that we are going to see an issue like we saw in Waurn Ponds, where Stan Larcombe, a fifth-generation farmer, had his land compulsorily acquired by the government to build a new train maintenance facility, but this left his farm completely cut in two and unviable.

I am concerned that because there is not a list of crossings, farmers in my part of the world are one day going to get a knock on the door with someone saying, ‘We’ve just realised you’ve got a private crossing, and we’re going to take a bit of your farm away because it’s not viable to replace it. You won’t be able to access the other side of the railway line, but don’t worry, we’ll give you some compensation’. Compensation will not help the land be viable for farming businesses, and the lack of access will reduce farms’ resale values. You have to actually have access. Much of it is dairy country, and crossing cows across the road twice a day for milking is what they actually need to do. We need a much greater commitment from the government to provide alternative access rather than them saying they may do it if it is viable. And who decides if it is viable to replace the crossing? That is a big question. Who will make the judgement and what criteria will they use? So whilst we do not oppose this bill, we will be making sure that we have consultation with farmers and the Victorian Farmers Federation and that we get an amendment into the upper house, because I am greatly concerned for the farming communities. This leaves just too many questions. The government must guarantee an alternative access will be provided, and it must release information on how it will decide whether it is viable to replace a crossing. They cannot leave it so grey. There is potential for significant issues, and the best way to deal with this is now rather than down the track when you have got 50 farmers whose farms have been cut in half.

Providing alternative access is not just an issue for farmland along the Warrnambool line. The South Warrnambool rail crossing in Gilles Street has been closed after an unfortunate accident down there where someone actually took their own life. This was the initial reason given for the closure, but now the government are actually saying they are keeping it closed because they need the land for future train site stabling. So it will stay closed, and no other options have been made available for that area. Now, that crossing connects the Warrnambool CBD to the wonderful trails of Lake Pertobe and to the foreshore area, and it is a safe cycling link for those living in South Warrnambool to ride their bikes or to walk to the city centre. You just cannot take away access and not replace it. The community down there, particularly led by Ray Lougheed, who I have had many chats about this with, have been very vocal about having that crossing reopened, and I support them in that. The government must provide an alternative and not just say, ‘It’s closed. Find another way’. Listen to the locals, do the consultation and open it up with a safe crossing.

I will conclude there. I did say there are some good aspects of the bill. One of those is that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator are able to give their employees authority to enforce Victorian laws, which was an oversight in the transfer of employees from VicRoads to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator. It would have meant that the employees did not have authority to enforce Victorian laws, so that has been fixed. One of the 58 changes in the bill is about bringing heavy vehicles over the 4.5 tonnage into line with the .00 law rather than the .05 law, and I think everyone would agree that any improvement to road safety is something we can all agree on. I do not oppose the bill, but we will be consulting between here and the upper house and producing some amendments in line with that consultation.

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (10:59): We have heard it here first in late-breaking news from a shadow minister: they are opposed to bigger builds in Victoria—bigger projects that transform and deliver generational change for our communities. Listen to the Grattan report, walk away from big infrastructure and walk away from transformational projects. You have heard it here first from an executive member of the shadow cabinet. They are walking away from the infrastructure projects that our communities rely on. That means walking away from level crossing removals, that means walking away from the North East Link, that means walking away from the Suburban Rail Loop. I tell you what, my community in Mordialloc, along the Frankston train line, and people across our communities would be devastated by the news that the Liberal opposition and no less the shadow cabinet is opposed to the generational projects and the Big Build for our communities. ‘Listen to the Grattan Institute’ were the comments—‘Walk away from the Big Build agenda’. If there was any more reason to vote for an Andrews Labor government in 2022 to secure the big infrastructure projects to get you home safer and sooner, that was the advertisement right here on this bill.

The Big Build is about transforming our communities for tomorrow. It saw substantial level crossing removals across our communities. Just on the Frankston train line, when I had the opportunity to be elected and represent my wonderful community in the City of Kingston and the Mordialloc electorate, when we came to government we had 30 level crossings on the Frankston train line. By the time we finish our level crossing removals there will be 18 gone and 12 new stations built. We have seen the completion of the removal of crossings on Balcombe Road in Mentone and on Park and Charman roads in Cheltenham and we have seen two brand new stations built at Mentone and Cheltenham. They have transformed our communities for the better. In Edithvale we are seeing piling works getting underway right now. I just came up Station Street and the Nepean Highway this morning to see the thousands of pilings going in in our community right now as we speak, with the workers doing an incredible job to get rid of these level crossings for good.

By next year, in September, we will see those level crossings go, a big outcome with the removals at Edithvale Road, with the removals at Swanpool Avenue, Chelsea Road and Argyle Avenue, and then Bondi Road in Bonbeach. Those ratbag level crossings will be gone for good. The community wanted them gone decades ago and they are gone for good right now. We could not be prouder or happier with the work that has been done.

People rightly had cynicism about whether our bold ambition, our bold agenda—the Big Build to remove level crossings for good—could be achieved. I mean, they had not seen much activity in the years before. But they stuck with us, they gave us a chance, and we are delivering with these removals right now. And we are seeing the impact that this has had on our communities. Tens of thousands of vehicles are going through Mentone and Cheltenham, and now families and communities are getting home safer and sooner in our local community.

But it does not stop there. One of the projects that has been talked about forever in our local community is the Mordialloc Freeway. This is a project that was put on the map back when the Hamer government was in, and it took an Andrews Labor government to drive this outcome and drive this project forward. I am really proud to say that by the end of next year we will be opening up the Mordialloc Freeway. After decades of being talked about, it is being delivered. We are seeing millions of tonnes of earth being brought in and settled into place now. In the next few months we will see the bridge structures going up that will transform the way we get around our communities. It will be linking in employment precincts like we have never seen before, creating those efficiencies in job-creating areas, at Moorabbin Airport, in Braeside, in the Carrum Downs and Seaford business park and in Dandenong South. It will be connecting those employment precincts—and the Monash employment cluster, one of the biggest in Australia.

Also it is about that vital precious time that we have with family and friends. A 10-minute travel saving one way does not seem like much in one travel, but when you add that up over the course of a year, that is more time spent with loved ones, that is more time spent in our local communities. During the COVID-19 impacts we have seen some of that time that we have not been able to spend with loved ones, friends and family, and that time is going to matter. If we get a chop out, like the Grattan Institute talks about, on time from infrastructure projects, then why would we be walking away from doing those builds now? If anything, we should be doubling down. As Infrastructure Australia said a few years back, we had a $110 billion backlog in infrastructure projects a few years back. This government has an ambitious tens of billions of dollars infrastructure agenda to catch us up to where we need to be to futureproof our communities. We do not want to be walking away from these big transformational infrastructure projects.

The other thing that is lost on those opposite in saying that we should walk away from the Big Build agenda is the confidence that is derived in our communities from these building projects. They put Victoria on the map as the engine room of jobs in our national economy. The confidence in Victoria that has been derived from the infrastructure agenda, the job-creating hub of our nation, has really brought pride, respect and confidence to Victoria after we lost so much momentum between 2010 and 2014. That is why Victorians have so much confidence that as we come out of the coronavirus pandemic we will see another Big Build agenda and confidence being restored in our nation, because the recipe for success has been shown in the last few years. It is exciting to see the delivery of those projects. Rather than governments talking about what they want to and then wasting their time and not delivering for their communities we are seeing that delivery right now. People can touch it, they can see it. They see the disruptions, they see all the cranes in the air, they see the big dig-outs of those major road, rail and infrastructure projects.

You see the amazing progress on the metro rail tunnel. You know, the Greens political party come in here and lecture us about road projects in one isolated setting. Local Greens do it in my patch as well. But then they fail to mention some of the big rail transformations as if they are not there and then at the last minute try to jump on at the end and claim credit for it. The Melbourne metro rail tunnel is truly a Labor government project. It started back under Bracks and Brumby and it has been running through. It was put on the shelf during the coalition term, not moved around—nothing at all. There was $50 million for planning left there. They could have claimed credit for it, they could have delivered it. It took an Andrews Labor government to get this back on track. This makes a massive difference in my community—a 15 per cent increase in capacity—but on those growth corridor lines it is a substantial increase in capacity. I was originally a Berwick boy. I grew up on the Pakenham-Cranbourne train line. To think that a 45 per cent capacity increase will be delivered as part of this project is extraordinary in those growth corridors. It is something like 60 per cent on the Sunbury line. Of course the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel will connect the Frankston line with the Sunbury line and create a two-way stream all the way through with those rail tunnels, and it will return the Frankston line wholly to the city loop as well.

But we are not done there, and if you had listened to the shadow cabinet minister you would say the Suburban Rail Loop will not see the light of day under those opposite. I am glad that they have been honest with the community, because they did not even have a bet each way. They just did not even mention it. Those opposite were going to put the level crossings on the backburner. On their little ‘Get back in control’ website—remember you had to put an ‘au’ on the end because otherwise you would get to incontinence, not incompetence. You would get to incontinence if you did not put an ‘au’ on the end. You had incompetence if you put an ‘au’ on the end, because what they were going to do was put the level crossings back five years for my community. I mean, that is effectively saying, ‘Beyond the forward estimates, forget it. It ain’t coming. It’s not going to happen in our community’. They pushed it all the way back. It was not even going to happen. And then they rock up and try to claim credit, saying they support it in my patch. Well, people are not fooled. People are not fooled, because we are delivering those outcomes.

But as we found out today, I am glad that I am able to inform my community—when I go back tonight on the Nepean Highway, turn onto Station Street and get back to Chelsea—that I know and am in full knowledge that those opposite will walk away from the Suburban Rail Loop, a project that in stage 1 will take you from Cheltenham to Box Hill, connecting employment precincts and educational precincts like never before. Luckily my community knows. With the openness and transparency of those opposite, their shadow ministers, to come forward and say, ‘Walk away from the Big Build agenda’, at least then there will be a contrast in just over 700 days time when we front up for the November 2022 election. They know that the Victorian Labor government will continue to deliver these Big Build projects to futureproof our communities and get communities home safer and sooner. That is the biggest and most important thing that we need to be doing now—restoring confidence and ambition in our community. We have seen that delivery over the last six years. We have seen those ambitious projects being outlined.

The Suburban Rail Loop is an amazing transformational project. We can have theoretical discussions about cities in other nations—I heard the member for Prahran talking about that—but the Greens were not anywhere near the Suburban Rail Loop, were they. They were not anywhere near the Suburban Rail Loop. This was a visionary project. Stage 1 from Cheltenham to Box Hill will be transformational. It will start in my patch and go all the way through. I will be able to visit the member for Box Hill during that stage 1. It will be amazing. I will stop off at the member for Mount Waverley. I will eventually get to the member for Ivanhoe’s patch and then all the way through to the member for St Albans. That is the visionary policy that we need in this state, and that is what will drive and restore confidence as we come out of COVID—that the Victorian Labor government, the Andrews Labor government, is delivering those big projects. I am just glad that one of them on that side—they do not front up much for speeches during the week—has been honest with the Victorian people that they oppose the Big Build and they will not continue in our communities.

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (11:09): The member for Mordialloc must be so visionary—he has already envisaged my speech that I have not actually given yet. He has taken visionary to a whole new level there. I hope my speech matches up with the one he has already got in his mind.

The Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 makes a number of amendments to transport-related legislation in regard to a wide range of matters, including arrangements around acquiring land around private level crossings, long-term leasing arrangements for VicTrack, which I believe is to assist with the inland rail project, some changes to the Road Safety Act 1986 about blood alcohol content for drivers of vehicles over 4.5 tonnes, and some changes around the sale and registration of non-standard numberplates, and I do note in there extending the date for the abolition of the roads corporation VicRoads out for another year. The rearrangement of the transport bureaucracy seems to be ongoing. It is something that I certainly support. We do need one unified transport department and to fold VicRoads and PTV in together, but I do note it has taken some time for that to occur.

Now, what I do want to speak about, like many members who have spoken before me did, is transport more generally and the challenges in particular that we are being faced with through COVID-19 and the effect that has had on our transport network. A number of government members have spoken about their Big Build. Of course they are very entitled to get on the front foot and talk up the benefits to their communities, and obviously it is a welcome change from the four years of talking about transport projects rather than doing them that we had under the previous coalition government. I will note, just having a look at certainly some of the documentation and transport planning documents that we have managed to have made available to the public and secured through freedom of information, there were decisions to be made around the table during the previous coalition government about whether to proceed with Metro Tunnel and about whether to proceed with ordering high-capacity trains and they were put off. At the end of the day they made that decision to delay or not to proceed with those projects when really they were needed. I think the bureaucracy were expecting them to occur, and they pushed it off for another four to five years. These projects should be closer to finished. If they had started under the previous government, they would be very much closer to actually being completed, because we do have a backlog of transport infrastructure, particularly public transport infrastructure, in Victoria. And to make those decisions to delay those projects—well, it has delayed things for a very long time.

But one of the issues that we have had with the way that the government has gone about it is that it has been very much about a projects-led approach. There is a lack of a Victorian transport plan—an overarching transport plan which would actually guide the investment in transport infrastructure. Look, this is not just the Greens saying this. Multiple transport experts say that we need an overarching transport plan for Victoria. The Transport Integration Act 2010 itself says that we should have a Victorian transport plan. That was an act brought in by the previous Labor government, but the government have refused to publish that plan as prescribed in the act. They say it is because they have got multiple different documents with varying degrees of detail and they believe that covers it. I do not believe it does.

The issue around that and why we actually need this is: what is the ultimate goal of the investment in transport infrastructure? Is it to change mode share? Is it actually the stated goal of this government to get more people onto public transport and sustainable transport than using cars? You would not know. I remember during the state election we had the big mobile billboards running through the Prahran electorate—I am sure they were all around the city—saying ‘Suburban Rail Loop: 100 000 cars off our roads’. Great. The North East Link is putting 100 000 cars on our roads. You are spruiking the benefits on one hand and on the other hand you have actually got a project that is putting 100 000 cars back on the road.

And then the other issue is that, when you look at emissions, transport emissions are rising. They are one of the fastest growing forms of emissions in Victoria and indeed across Australia. So, is it our goal—is it the stated goal of the government—to reduce transport emissions? This is the sort of plan that would actually then guide the investment in transport infrastructure to ensure that, as population grows, in a decade or 20 years time we will not be just simply faced with the same challenges that we have now of rising emissions and traffic congestion. So I would call on the government to implement what they said they would do in 2010 under the previous Labor government and take that approach and actually table a unified transport plan for Victoria to guide the investment in transport infrastructure.

The key challenge now that we are facing during COVID is changing habits. We have got less people, obviously, moving around because of the restrictions. That is due to now return to some sense of normalcy, but we have got less people on public transport. There is a real risk of increased congestion if people are concerned about travelling or not willing to travel on public transport, being packed in closely with people during peak hour. I think what we will see is that will return in time, but we do have an immediate challenge there of making sure that we are not faced with a city full of congestion and people in their cars as everyone returns to work.

Obviously there are going to be more people working from home and probably more flexible working arrangements. I am sure everyone thought working from home was not such a bad idea to begin with. Some people are probably maybe not of that view having done it for so many months, but I have got no doubt that increased flexibility in working from home will now become a part of working life—and that is a good thing. That is definitely a good thing. Population growth has slowed in the immediate term; what impact that will have in the long term we will see. But I am sure that will be a factor as well.

We do have a big opportunity as well. This is a window of opportunity where people are changing their transport habits. We have seen around the world more and more people take up sustainable transport—cycling and walking. This is something that we definitely want to keep, and certainly cities and governments around the world have gone big on investing in fast-tracking or in pop-up bike infrastructure. We are going through a bike boom probably not seen since the 1970s—since the oil crisis—and of course that bike boom was squandered because governments did not seize the moment. It is imperative now that the Victorian government seize the moment by investing in bike infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure to ensure that we can cater for the increased numbers of people who are riding and who want to ride and then ensure all the benefits that come along with that: reduced congestion both on public transport and our roads, reduced carbon emissions—very important—and improved people’s health.

In my questioning with the Minister for Transport Infrastructure during the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings I expressed my frustration that things were not moving along here in Victoria as we were seeing in just about every other jurisdiction in developed nations, but I am glad to see that we have now seen some investment in pop-up bike lanes—$13 million—and we will see A Metre Matters laws coming into effect next year as well. That is a really welcome start, and certainly I would like to see the government continue on with that. I would like to see fast-tracking of planned bike infrastructure like the St Kilda Road bike lanes, taking advantage of the moment where more and more people are riding their bikes and bike sales are booming and making sure that once cars return to the road and once things get to normalcy people can still feel confident about riding their bike again to work and around our city.

One of the interesting things that I have noticed as well since there have been less cars on the road is on the odd occasion where I did pop into the office and then make my way home just about every single time there were kids, families and adults using our local streets as public spaces—playing; they had the chalk out, you know, drawing pictures on the road; getting around on skateboards, scooters and what have you, little ones and big kids alike—and I think

that is something we really want to continue in our neighbourhoods.

We have noticed during this pandemic just how important open space, public space, green space is, and if our local streets can be utilised as public spaces, it really brings communities together. The benefit there is connectedness to community, and there are also mental health benefits and health benefits. I think there is a big opportunity now for governments to seize this moment.

With public transport, I would really caution against any move to think that just because we have had a big break or because patronage is down or because population growth is down that somehow the foot needs to be taken off in terms of public transport infrastructure. This absolutely is not the case. There is no scenario in Melbourne’s future where we do not need a world-class public transport network—a metro rail system that is on a par with what you would experience if you went to Hong Kong, if you went to London or if you went to Paris. That is where we should be aiming our creaky suburban network. It really does need to transform into that modern world-class metro that we can all be proud of. The government acknowledged the projects that are underway—the Metro Tunnel, the level crossing removals, the high-capacity signalling and new trains—which are fantastic. The next step now is to roll this across the entire network, thus making sure that the benefits are realised across our entire network. Similarly with our tram network, a modern tram network means making sure that every stop is accessible and increasing the manufacturing of the high-capacity trams; now is the time to really step that up.

With transport projects, particularly those billed as stimulus projects, they do take time to get going and obviously that was the issue that the previous Labor government faced before they were voted out at the 2010 election—it just took too long to get those projects off the ground once they decided to go ahead. A way to get people back on to our public transport network and a way to get more people employed is an increase in the operational funding of our public transport network. Infrastructure funding needs to happen, but right now we need to increase operational funding. And what could that go to? Well, that could go to employing more customer service staff across the entire network. The plan is to have PSOs at every train station, but how about having customer service staff at every train station, first train to last—someone who is actually going to sell you a ticket, assist you on your journey or tell you where to go and which train you need to catch? Where there is capacity, and that is during off-peak and on weekends, we should be getting more trains on the network. There are parts of the network across Melbourne where the wait times are 15 or 20 minutes. The wait time is 20 minutes for a train in my electorate at Prahran and Windsor stations on the weekend for Chapel Street.

I think this is a really easy win for the government. The investment is not that much. We have had it costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office. It would get more train drivers employed and it would get more maintenance staff employed, so it would have an immediate jobs benefit. The impact of those two measures of more trains during the off-peak, during the daytime and on weekends and customer service staff will be a much more people-friendly network. The network caters more for people going from home into the city and back every single day but not for those people whose day involves dropping the kids off at school or child care, looking after mum or dad, some caring duties, maybe some paid or some part-time work or doing some shopping. For someone who is actually going to need to make multiple trips on the public transport network throughout the day, waits of 15 to 20 minutes are an absolute non-starter.

And let us face it, it is women generally who have those travel patterns. So making it a much more people-friendly, much more female-friendly public transport network would go a very long way to actually lifting that patronage back up. If we are expecting peak-hour patronage to be down and there is not much room for extra trains on our peak-hour network, that would go a very long way to bringing more people back to our public transport network. Obviously the benefits there are less carbon emissions and getting cars off our roads.

The member for Mordialloc is not happy that we take pot shots at the toll road situation. The reality is that there is now a strong push to rethink those toll roads, to rethink the North East Link, and whether those projects are actually necessary even from the government’s own figures. I mean, the issue that we have got around those projects is the overstatement of the benefits, the dodgy traffic modelling, the extra cars on the road and the environmental destruction. The environment effects statement process is not there to stop a project that is bad; it is there to basically facilitate a project whether it is good for the environment or bad for the environment.

We saw that with the North East Link process. Despite the massive environmental impact, despite the suggestions that the panel made to improve the environmental impact of that project, the minister could just ignore them. Even if it is in the planning minister’s response to it, the minister can just ignore them. It is incredibly frustrating, and if we had a transport plan that actually set out what the actual goal of the state was in terms of transport, where are we trying to go, I do not think the West Gate Tunnel or the North East Link would make it through. I do not think they stack up from an environmental perspective, I do not think they stack up from a transport perspective in terms of where we actually want to go in transport, and they certainly do not stack up from a financial perspective. Certainly the Auditor-General has taken great issue with the West Gate Tunnel. With the North East Link, the government is taking the full financial brunt of that. The private sector, who are generally pretty hungry for these sorts of things, do not want to touch the tolling arrangements.

I am sure this will fall on deaf ears amongst the government, but I want to echo the calls of so many people. And it is community members, member for Mordialloc, not just the Greens in Mordialloc; it is community members out there who are saying, ‘Rethink these projects, rethink the environmental destruction that we are going to have on our communities, rethink the billions of dollars and the financial risk that the government is going to take for these projects’.

And of course finally the member for Mordialloc touched on the Suburban Rail Loop. In regard to the Suburban Rail Loop, that needs to go hand in hand with upgrading our train network—getting better frequency, getting more services, being able to have trains every 2 to 3 minutes, because if you are going to connect every single train line in Melbourne and you have still got waits of 20 minutes or 15 minutes on every other line, or if you are not going to be able to get on a service because it is overcrowded, it is not going to realise its full potential. You need to do both hand in hand, have that world-class metro on our existing lines, upgrade every existing line so you can have high-frequency services across the network. That is the way you are going to actually realise the full benefits of the Suburban Rail Loop. Both projects go hand in hand, so I would urge the government to take that approach and not ignore the existing network.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (11:29): I too rise to talk about the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I was and I still am going to focus most of my contribution on the sections of the legislation that deal with minor definitional changes that will allow the state bodies and state authorities to take charge and have responsibility for the Big Build.

I obviously did not have the prescience of the member for Mordialloc to be able to foretell what the member for Prahran was going to say, but having listened to the member for Prahran, I do want to respond to a couple of points that he raised in relation to his claim that the state does not have a clear transport plan. He was suggesting that the approach in his mind should be a mode-share target or an emissions target. As the member would know, I have in this place and for many years beforehand been a passionate advocate for public transport in my area and across the state as well, but public transport is not the sole solution for everybody. The goal of the transport plan is about accessibility. It is about making transport more accessible for more people so more people are able to get to the jobs that they need to get to and to the services that they need to get to. There is never a one-size-fits-all solution.

Yes, we need to be looking at increasing and improving public transport, and that is exactly what we are doing. You talk about the Melbourne Metro, and you talk about the Suburban Rail Loop and improving frequencies on the line that will feed into the city and connect into where the Suburban Rail Loop stations will go. Well, that is exactly what the Melbourne Metro project is designed to achieve. It is looking at our busiest lines and providing that additional capacity so that more trains can run on them and more people can run on them and putting in high-capacity trains so that more people can run on the trains that are running more frequently. This is happening on all of our lines.

In my particular patch, the Box Hill patch, in the last term there was a level crossing removal which was completed, which was the Blackburn Road level crossing, a very busy level crossing placed right at a roundabout. The roundabout is still there, but it was such an awful, awkwardly positioned level crossing, and it created traffic snarls throughout that village. It has made such a huge difference that that level crossing has been removed.

Now, that leaves two level crossings on the line between Ringwood and the city, both of them being in my patch at Mont Albert Road and Union Road, and it was this government and only this government that committed to removing those level crossings at the 2018 election. It was something that the Liberals specifically said they would not match. Once we remove those level crossings, that will allow for a review of the service pattern and the frequencies that can be used between Ringwood and the city, because you have no level crossings. All the infrastructure and public transport infrastructure that we are delivering is feeding into the narrative of increasing accessibility for users—accessibility for the residents of Melbourne and for regional Victoria in all the regional transport projects that we are delivering—to ensure that people can get to their workplaces, get to their places of education and get to the services that they need more frequently and more quickly.

I do also want to talk a little bit about the post-COVID response to transport. Particularly coming from my own background in transport planning, I have had time I guess to speculate and think about how this might affect transport. I think we will notice some long-lasting changes. People will return to public transport and we will return to a level of normality in that way, but that there will be a level of change in behaviour, as the member for Prahran has said, in terms of working from home. We have actually discovered how beneficial working from home can be for at least a period of time in our lives. It might not be for a whole week or for six months, but it may be instead of five days a week going down to three days a week and having that balance so you can be more a part of your community, closer to your family, closer to your kids and not using that time as commute time. I actually think that this provides a real opportunity and a real benefit for suburban communities, because this is where the bulk of our population reside, and that means that rather than necessarily taking those long commuter trips, they are going to be focusing on smaller and more local and closer commuter trips to their closest service hub, if you like. I think it will lead to a sort of consolidation of development in some of these suburban centres.

I actually feel that the future is looking really bright for places such as Box Hill, which has a really central location in the eastern suburbs and is already a major service hub. It will really attract those people who do not necessarily want to go into the city. It has the education, it has the workplaces, it has the office space so that people can actually go there without having to necessarily go into the city. I think that this is going to prove to be the real benefit of projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop—being able to provide that connection from a suburban location to a suburban location, to move people to their suburban education location, to the hospital and to the TAFE that are in Box Hill and to the major commercial developments that have occurred and are continuing to occur in Box Hill. We want people to be able to access those, and it is not about necessarily getting from the other side of town to get to Box Hill; we will be looking at the people of the eastern suburbs who need to get into Box Hill because they are working and they are doing that in preference to going into the city. I think that is a change that has already been in train—pardon the pun—but is something that will be quickened, be hastened, by the impacts of the pandemic and commercial entities making their own choices in terms of where they might want to locate workers and in thinking more about where the workers are actually going to want to go, because they know that having a happy and engaged workforce is going to be better for them in the long run.

Now, this is going to have to be combined with obviously a lot of other improvements to the public transport system. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago in my adjournment the impacts that this was going to have on the existing Box Hill interchange and the criticality of improving that interchange and improving the bus network and bus frequencies that will tie this whole development together.

I also want to just briefly touch on another major element of the Big Build that is occurring in my electorate, and that is the North East Link Project. The North East Link Project does have some big impacts in the Box Hill electorate, particularly along the existing freeway reserve, but certainly the feedback that I get is that the local community is supportive of that project. They are not all going to the city; they want to be able to move around and importantly have the freight get around. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (11:39): I rise to make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. As has been said already, the opposition is not opposing this, although we do have some concerns that we will deal with further in the other place. Interestingly, this bill provides for 58 amendments to transport legislation under the guise of improving the operation. There are a number of acts that are being amended here: the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Road Management Act 2004, the Rail Management Act 1996, the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Transport Legislation Act 2019.

I want to start by having a look at the context that the government has sold this bill in. The second-reading speech is really about allowing their infrastructure projects to go ahead, their Big Build being accelerated. This is something that they talk about quite a bit, but they forget and have very little regard for the failures and the lack of transparency around these projects, the cost blowouts and the deadlines not being met. We end up with enormous waste, and we know that people on the street absolutely hate waste, and certainly with cost overruns you could put those in that category. If we look at something like the airport rail, it is so important that there are dedicated tunnels between Sunshine and the airport to facilitate fast rail to the regions—to Shepparton, to Bendigo, to Ballarat—so that this can really open up and unlock regional Victoria, and I think that the government is failing in this regard by trying to do that on the cheap.

We have the Suburban Rail Loop. There are issues there that I will canvass in a moment. We see the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel. It was reported last year that there could be $2 billion in cost blowouts. These are extraordinary sums—$1 billion is a lot of money, $2 billion is certainly extraordinary. If they can resolve some of the issues that they have—you know, it comes to a standstill every now and again. You do not have to take my word for this, you really have to just look at the reports that the Auditor-General puts out; it can provide that totally independent opinion about the Labor government’s mismanagement. I think if we remember there was a $3 billion blowout on the Level Crossing Removal Project as well. This is something that government need to take heed of and get on top of because they time and time again fail in this regard. We heard the member for Mordialloc just spin, spin, spin about this, but really you have got to have regard for good governance and good management of your projects.

I want to bring to the attention of the house the report done by the Grattan Institute. Now I actually hold the Grattan Institute in high regard, and think that they have a great deal of credibility in the wider environment. They have recently put out their report, The Rise of Megaprojects: Counting the Costs, and they make a number of interesting observations that I want to draw to the house’s attention. It talks about the fast-tracking of transport projects, hoping for an infrastructure-led recovery out of the COVID recession, but interestingly—and I love this line that they say—and this is a direct quote:

But those ‘infrastructure pipelines’ are constipated—

their word—

by megaprojects that are too slow to be effective stimulus and prone to mammoth cost overruns.

I thought that was a particularly interesting comment. They go on to explain that megaprojects are already breaking records for cost overruns and bring to our attention the North East Link, which was just raised earlier by the member for Box Hill. The North East Link was costed at $6 billion in 2008. It is now expected to cost $15.8 billion even though the Victorian government selected the cheapest route. How did they get it so wrong? Why does this happen time and time again? Cost overruns have been a problem for some time, and the average actual costs exceeded promised costs by 21 per cent. They outline that big projects are particularly risky. So absolutely the government needs to give caution to how they structure these programs. They also advise that governments should rethink major projects that have been promised or are under construction, particularly those announced without a business case. So what comes to mind there absolutely straightaway is the Suburban Rail Loop business case. We know there is no business case, we know that the government will do everything they can to avoid having a business case undertaken and we know that it will cause them grief if they do.

One of the other things that I want the government to consider is that all infrastructure projects do not have to be mega. You can get a lot of bang for your buck for local infrastructure projects—and I look at some of the smaller projects that we have had. Mansfield had some roundabouts completed at a relatively low cost, and at the time VicRoads said they could not believe that a project at a low cost got such a great bang for their buck and made a huge difference to the township. We had one at the end of the town and one near the hospital, and it has made the traffic flow through the town really just improve incredibly. Slip lanes off major highways make a very big difference as well, and these are low cost. VicRoads actually spoke to me about them once and said you can do them very easily, very simply. They make a big difference to traffic moving.

A couple of the things I want to touch on are our concerns. We had concerns about private rail crossings, and during the bill briefing the government were unable to provide information about how many rail crossings there in fact may be. Even today when the member for Eltham came back reading the notes that were provided to her by the department, it was still unclear how many private rail crossings there are that are subject to having those crossings removed with little consultation. I know the Victorian Farmers Federation are jumping around about this, as they should be, and I would hate to think that the voices of farmers in particular who have these private crossings were not considered and not heard. We do not want city-based bureaucrats and a city-centric government making these decisions without doing the appropriate level of consultation.

We also had some concerns over the numberplates, and that has been canvassed in some detail. But I did want to mention that on the radio this morning they were talking about particular personalised numberplates. People have personalised numberplates for a reason. Some will invest hoping that they will get a great bang for their buck and speculate in the future. Some use them for here and now for a bit of fun. Some people may have them for their work cars—they may have a fleet of cars and they may all have similar numberplates. But there was one that I thought was particularly good, and that was ‘EIEIO’. And looking at the clerks at the table at the minute, there may be somebody in this chamber who would be very keen to have a number plate with ‘EIEIO’, because we know Old MacDonald Had a Farm—and that was one that I thought was particularly cute.

Now, there are a couple of things here that I do like about the bill that I did want to put on record. The drivers of a large vehicle—either a bus or a vehicle combination over 15 tonnes—will be required to have a blood alcohol or breath alcohol concentration of zero. I think this is particularly important. I have many highways in my electorate and I in fact live on a highway, and we have loads of heavy vehicles travelling up and down that highway, and I would feel much more comfortable knowing that the drivers do have a zero blood alcohol reading as well. There is also the introduction of a zero requirement for all drivers of heavy vehicles defined as vehicles or vehicle combinations of more than 4.5 tonnes. This will capture trucks that require a special licence and will not capture tradies or people with utes. Also, there is the increase in penalties for drink or drug driving by a driver supervising a learner. Not only does it set a bad example having somebody teaching you to drive who has been drinking, but I think that this is a commonsense change.

With regard to infrastructure projects, I have so many highways in my electorate—the Melba, the Maroondah, the Warburton and the Goulburn Valley highways—and they are in such a poor state of repair. I get so many comments at the moment. We have got a project on the Maroondah Highway that stopped for winter because of cold and wet, but all the other projects everywhere else kept going on—so all of the locals actually think, and the word is on the street, that they have run out of money to continue with that. And with the way that the barriers are all still in place, and the reductions, people think that is a lot more dangerous than what it was previously. It needs to be attended to urgently.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Northcote, could I ask members in the chamber to ensure that their face masks are being worn correctly, please.

Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (11:50): I am very pleased to contribute to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, which supports our work to transform Victoria’s transport infrastructure system. Wedged as we are between the outer northern suburbs and the CBD, the residents of the Northcote electorate know the value of well-planned, efficient and reliable transport infrastructure. Sadly, thanks to years of missed opportunity at the hands of those opposite, they know the dangers and frustrations that come when building for the future is neglected.

For locals in my electorate the need to invest in transport is not an abstract issue; it is a fundamental part of our lives in the inner north, especially given around one in three people take public transport to and from work. It is not just about being late for work due to traffic or being stuck on an overcrowded train or navigating an unsafe cycling route—although these challenges are real—it is about innovative and forward-thinking planning that creates connections, opportunities for business, opportunities for employment, linkages between our activity and recreational centres, and open spaces for us to share.

The way our suburbs are designed and integrated is a critical factor in how people relate to one another and how we come together as a community. That is why our unprecedented $70 billion investment in transport infrastructure projects across the state is so important, in unlocking not just road and rail potential but the potential of our suburbs themselves. It is why we are getting on with the job of improving the whole system. The Metro Tunnel project will allow more than half a million more passengers per week to take the train during peak hours. I have been enthusiastically following the progress of our enormous tunnel-boring machines, Joan and Meg, as they have charted a path underneath our feet.

But perhaps the most far-reaching and yet localised improvements to our rail and road network are the removals of level crossings—75 by 2025, amazing. In the Northcote electorate we have already seen the boom gates gone at Grange Road, improving traffic flow and safety and looking, frankly, wonderful. Now the level crossing removals are also underway on the Mernda line at Oakover Road, Bell Street, Cramer Street and Murray Road in Preston—a massive four crossings to go at once. Around 82 000 cars pass through these level crossings every day, with boom gates down up to 40 per cent of the morning peak period. These crossings are frustrating, they are dangerous and they divide our community. Removing them will be a huge boon for locals. Not only will it mean trains and cars run smoother and safer, but it will also deliver new premium train station precincts at Bell and Preston as well as much-needed open space and amenities for cyclists, pedestrians and local families to enjoy.

Last month the plans for the two stations were released, and they include beautiful modern piazzas and greenery around state-of-the-art elevated stations. As we speak, a group of Preston locals are helping us design the new open spaces to be created under the 2-kilometre rail bridge. Of course, this corridor will soon feature a brand new shared walking and cycling path to connect us to our popular precincts like the Preston Market.

At this juncture I cannot help but reflect just briefly on a bizarrely misplaced adjournment from last night. Virtually all of us on both sides of the house were bemused by the member for Brighton, who has probably never set foot in the northern suburbs, and his motivations for providing commentary on the extraordinary piece of transport infrastructure we are building in Preston with the removal of four level crossings. Perhaps my long-time suspicion that the Greens political party and the Liberal Party are not all that different from one another has been proven accurate. Perhaps the member for Brighton is hoping to endear himself to the Greens in his electorate so that he can rely on their preferences at the next election.

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on a matter of relevance, I understand this is a wideranging debate, but it is not an opportunity to attack members of the opposition, and I would ask you to draw the member back to discussing the bill before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can return to the bill. Thank you.

Ms THEOPHANOUS: Deputy Speaker, my comments were entirely related to the subject of this debate, which is transport infrastructure in our community. I understand it has been a wideranging debate, and that is what my comments related to, but if the opposition or indeed the member for Brighton want more inspiration from the Greens political party on transport infrastructure, which is the subject of this debate—

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I understand that the member is obviously participating in a wideranging debate. Again I reiterate my position that this is not an opportunity to be talking about the opposition, not an opportunity to be talking about members of the opposition. She should be using it as an opportunity to talk about how this bill relates to government business and she should be dealing with that accordingly.

Ms THEOPHANOUS: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a wideranging debate and I am talking about transport infrastructure in my electorate as many members of both sides of the house have done during this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to continue her contribution on the bill.

Ms THEOPHANOUS: Maybe the opposition can consider resurrecting the failed disaster of a parking strategy in Darebin, which had the militant aim of removing cars entirely from the area. In fact maybe you can spend your adjournment next time on that. Or maybe they can take another leaf out of the Greens’ playbook and reserve themselves for coming down to Preston to take credit for the level crossing once it has been funded, built and delivered by the Andrews government.

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is the third time I have had to rise to my feet to ask the member to desist from talking about members of the opposition. I do not know if her game plan is that she has other matters that she wants to raise or to continue talking about the opposition, but I ask again, politely, if the member would desist from talking about the opposition and return to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! On the point of order, the member is making some comparisons with other governments and other members of Parliament, so I think it is well within her purview to do that. But I do ask the member to relate it back to the bill.

Ms THEOPHANOUS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will leave these bizarre bedfellows to their intimate whisperings and move on. This bill will accelerate our Big Build project and back the 15 000 jobs this program supports through a number of changes, including ensuring local infrastructure built by the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority can be transferred to councils in accordance with the normal split of responsibilities between state and local road authorities. It introduces powers to close occupational rail crossings with compensation for financial losses in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, and it removes doubt that VicTrack can enter long-term leases over Crown land in its management for rail infrastructure-related projects.

This bill will also deliver improvements for road safety. We know that every life lost on the roads is one too many, and that statement is at the core of our Towards Zero strategy and why we are investing in safety infrastructure to the tune of $1.4 billion. From upgrading intersections to installing over 3000 kilometres of flexible barriers and delivering safety upgrades for cyclists and pedestrians, we are taking real, tangible steps to achieving that goal. In fact amenities for cyclists and pedestrians are a big feature of the infrastructure investment across the state, including in the Northcote electorate, where we are receiving some new pop-up bike lanes as part of our recent $13 million initiative to create more bike paths to ease crowding on public transport as we begin to reopen. These projects are building a sustainable future for our city, and I am proud to be part of a government that invests in public transport and acknowledges the importance of open and connected communities.

At the same time we are investing in our road infrastructure because we know that it is only by transforming the whole system that we can meet the needs of all Victorians. Whether that is the North East Link that will dramatically reduce traffic on our local roads in Northcote, including reducing it by 11 per cent on Separation Street and High Street, or whether it is the phenomenal Chandler Highway bridge, which means that 44 000 drivers are now no longer having to crowd into a one lane each way bottleneck nightmare, we are getting it done. We are futureproofing our road network and we are improving safety for families. That is what this government is about and that is what this bill is about. As I travel around my electorate I can already see the benefits of this investment and what it is doing to change lives, families and businesses. We are excited to get on with the job of continuing to deliver this important transport infrastructure, and for that reason I commend the bill to the house.

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (12:00): I rise today to make comment on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. In so doing once again I wish to highlight the terrible acts that this government has been up to again in putting up a large omnibus bill with a great variety of goals and objectives, some with noble cause and others with far less. I refer specifically to the lack of noble cause in the removal of private railway crossings, something that will be very, very newsworthy in my electorate of Polwarth, with the Warrnambool line running straight through its heart and which has I think the most level crossings and private crossings of any rail line in the state. Clearly the legislation proposed will do nothing to set at ease the concerns of many, many, many landowners and landholders who rely on a daily basis on that access. What I refer specifically to is that these accesses were granted by the government way back in 1869 for the specific purpose of ensuring that people were not disadvantaged in their land ownership when the rail easements were put through.

We have heard government member after government member talking about the government’s Big Build. They have told us in glowing terms about how they have got new flowerbeds and new bike paths and new walking tracks and, you know, can get to work 3 minutes quicker, and yet they are not talking about the vast and enormous economic cost that this legislation will probably inflict upon the hardworking, industrious people of rural and regional Victoria. I refer specifically to the action in objectives of the bill where the government says this is about supporting its Big Build in Melbourne. Let me tell you, there is a jolly big Big Build needed out in country Victoria, and that Big Build is a list a mile long. We have roadways and highways and byways in desperate need of upgrade. We have dangerous intersections and dangerous crossings still not even looked sideways at. In fact one does not have to do too much budgetary analysis to realise that half the woes of such crossings and roadways and danger points in my electorate could be fixed for the cost of just one level crossing removal. Why is that important? The safety of rural and regional roads is being completely neglected by the funnel of money going into Melbourne’s 50-odd Big Build crossing removals.

Let us just look have a look at the stats. We know, for example, that last year, in 2019, the Victorian road toll went up 24.9 per cent despite this government saying it cares about rural and regional roads, and of course we know that there is a 34 per cent increase in rural road deaths in that figure—a disastrous figure—of a 24.9 per cent increase. In 2020 this government has, through some degree of necessity but many of us would argue also through its extreme actions in dealing with COVID, completely worked to shut down this state. In the shutdown of this state, data from data.vic.gov.au tells us that there are up to 40 to 50 per cent fewer cars on our roads, 40 per cent during the week and 50 per cent on weekends. One could only assume there would be fewer deaths on our roads. You could only assume that. Forty to 50 per cent fewer cars on the road—that at least should lead to some road safety. Things are so parlous, our road conditions are so parlous in country and rural and regional Victoria that with a 40 to 50 per cent reduction in traffic, what has happened? It has increased. In the 26- to 49-year-old age cohort, which is the bulk of people driving regularly on our roads, it is a 20 per cent increase on a 24 per cent increase. This government’s road toll, its lack of maintenance and its lack of care for Victorians is out of control—totally out of control.

We have seen 67 deaths between the ages of 26 and 49 last year for the same period and 80 deaths this year. There were 80 deaths, an increase of 20 per cent, in a year when 40 to 50 per cent fewer cars were on the road. This is unsustainable. Why is this happening? It is happening because the government is not spending the money where it saves lives. It is not spending the money on road safety where it matters. Instead they are making it up as they go along and doing disastrous things.

I have already spoken twice in the house this week about the government’s road safety barrier and wire rope barrier policy, which is just not working. The link between what this government wants to do with closing private rail crossings and wire rope barriers is that the same problem is going to arise. I have got farmers pleading with Regional Roads Victoria to let them maintain access to their farms, to their properties, to their cattle yards and to their farm sheds to allow them to still get their important farming equipment into paddocks. But oh no, no-one in the bureaucracy will listen. Instead blindly, because someone in an office in Melbourne has decided that they are going to put a safety barrier in even though there is absolutely nothing to protect, they are blocking off access on road after road across regional Victoria. Here in this legislation today this government expects us to believe that they will consult properly, fairly and equitably with farmers that have rail access. This is going to spell absolute disaster for many, many rural communities. They have possibly lost access to their farm on a roadway that they have had for 150 years, and now this government is proposing that they are going to lose access across a rail line that they have had for 150 years. It is out of control. It is not based on what is good for the communities. It is not based on what is safe. It is not based on what is going to make a real difference to road safety.

I see in the chamber the former Minister for Road Safety, who was clearly behind this push for an endless waste of money on things that do not matter. Here we are in the midst of a pandemic at a time when we have got clear facts that between 40 and 50 per cent fewer people are on our roads and yet in the key driving cohort of 26- to 49-year-olds our death toll in the year to date, to 10 November, is up 20 per cent. That is something that this government should absolutely hang its head in shame over. We have seen the Premier for 100-odd days telling us how he is saving lives, and yet the clear acts of this government in not focusing on what matters in road safety have allowed our death toll over the last two years, but even more disastrously in this year, to spiral out of control. There is nothing in this road safety legislation that will do one thing to bring that back into line, to make Victorians feel safer on the roads, and most importantly, the constituency that I speak for and on behalf of today are the ones that find this most egregious.

I refer again to the attempt at road safety measures—for example, the Fyansford-Gheringhap Road. On that road, in the midst of installing this government’s alleged road safety program, six—not one—accidents have occurred, and they have not yet finished the upgrade of that road. The local farmers on that road are also hardworking volunteers in the local CFA. They have been called away from their daily work to solve more problems than they have ever experienced in the last 15 years in a matter of only three months under the guise of this government’s alleged commitment to road safety. Why this is so galling to these people is because they have tried to talk to this government. They have tried to meet with Regional Roads Victoria. They have tried to explain to them that this is road safety gone mad. Why are they right? Why we are standing here today advocating for the needs of this community is because this government says, ‘Let’s believe the science. Let’s believe the statistics’, and when we look at the statistics on road safety this government is doing zero. It is making the problem worse, it is wasting money and it is not focusing.

This bill does absolutely nothing to alleviate any of those genuine, well-founded concerns that rural and regional Victorians have, and they know that in this omnibus bill the government is wrapping up a million projects in one and selling it to its Melbourne constituency as part of the Big Build. It is not a Big Build. It is a big rort, it is a big rip-off and it is a big negative for rural and regional Victoria. It is absolutely galling.

Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (12:10): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

Business of the house

Orders of the day

Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (12:10): I move:

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (12:11): I think the last thing I was saying on Tuesday evening was that as European cities grow older and older, more and more people rent and that becomes the norm, which is why our rental amendments are so important. It has come to my attention that we have some house amendments to pass, and the minister at the table, the Minister for Child Protection, will have us in good hands. I fully support them, and I commend the bill to the house.

Government amendments circulated by Mr DONNELLAN under standing orders.

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (12:12): By leave, I would like to make a contribution on this bill. It is not too often you get to speak twice on a bill, but I am pleased to be able to rise and make a brief contribution in relation to the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020. I have just received, 30 seconds ago, a raft of house amendments. There are 19 of them, and without having had time to check them against the actual bill, because we have only just got them, I trust they do what has been assured by the other side that they will do.

If I can just set some context in relation to these amendments, the fact is that this bill has got a somewhat chequered history. It was introduced into the Parliament in June of this year and sat in no-man’s-land until it was brought on for debate last Tuesday. During my lead speaker contribution in relation to this bill I noted a number of things, including the fact that there had been 17 amendments emailed to me the night before, on Monday night, at 5.29, by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation’s staff. I note that the amendments then and the amendments now relate to the components within this bill, because it is effectively an omnibus bill, relating to the Attorney-General. I certainly do not hold that against the minister for consumer affairs or her staff. She is the messenger who has been given the hospital handpass, so to speak, in relation to these matters.

We had those amendments dropped on us on Monday night and distributed in the chamber on Tuesday. We have got these amendments today, and what they are doing, as I understand it, is addressing a matter that I raised in my contribution on Tuesday in relation to the parts of that particular bill that dealt with the Working with Children Act 2005. The matter I brought to the house’s attention at that stage was that since this bill came in in June—it is now November; it sat nowhere, as I said, and we have had it go through this house and through the other house—we in fact received royal assent on 4 November 2020 for the Worker Screening Bill 2020. The purposes in clause 1(c) of that particular bill says:

to repeal the Working with Children Act 2005; and …

and then it goes on. We had a bill before this house that was amending an act that has been repealed. That really sums up where we are with the legislative program of the government, because the government is a shambles in relation to its legislative program. That is very obviously evidenced in this particular just comical set of circumstances, and indeed if it was not so serious, it would be funny. But it is not funny because it is very serious. They have got impacts upon all Victorians these matters. The fact that this government cannot get itself organised and cannot deal effectively and efficiently with important legislation like this is a dreadful reflection on this government. They have got more resources than any government before them has ever had and yet they still neglect these basic matters. It is a shameful thing. The government should not only be embarrassed but they should be ashamed. They stand condemned.

I note also in relation to the Attorney-General that it has been a very bad week for her, and for the Premier, because these amendments relate back to the Attorney-General’s portfolio, as I said a moment ago, and this is coupled with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020, which was amended by the upper house, where the government failed to get it through because of some very inappropriate clauses contained within the bill. That bill came back here yesterday and was put through as amended. But it has been a situation where the Attorney has not been listening to the community, particularly in relation to that matter, and in relation to this matter she has just been—or her staff at least have been—totally negligent. I think that reflects the shambolic nature of this government. They stand condemned for this. They have got unlimited resources and unlimited manpower, and yet they cannot get simple things like this right.

The people of Victoria need to know that. The people of Victoria need to know that despite the money that they are using—the taxpayers money that is being spent at unprecedented levels—when it comes to attention to detail and when it comes to important black-letter law, this government just does not care. It does not care, and it just says near enough is good enough. That is not the way we see it on our side of the house, so we will always call out matters like this. We will always seek to ensure that not only is legislation appropriate but that it is sensible, that it makes sense and that it lines up with other pieces of legislation. This Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 clearly does not, and therefore we find ourselves here today on a Thursday afternoon receiving another 19 amendments from the minister. The government should be totally embarrassed about this. It is a dreadful situation. I trust that the amendments in my hand now that we received a couple of moments ago reflect the discussions that we have had, reflect the errors that I picked up on Tuesday and read into my initial speech and that these matters are now fully addressed.

Following speech incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 10 November:

Mr TAK (Clarinda)

I am delighted to make a contribution to the debate on the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020.

This bill is an important one that will amend a number of acts in the Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation portfolio, along with other portfolio legislation, to improve their operation, clarify requirements and update outdated references.

The first key reform contained in the bill includes amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003.

These amendments will implement the government’s policy decisions in relation to the keno licensing project and the wagering and betting licensing project.

These amendments will enable multiple keno licences to be issued and for the terms, including any exclusivity period, to be set in the licence. Further, the amendments will introduce obligations on keno licensees regarding the management of registered player accounts and player funds.

This will strengthen provisions around the management of online keno accounts. For example, the bill introduces offence provisions for keno licensees to ensure their compliance with player identification and player fund management requirements.

These measures will help to mitigate the risks of underage online gambling and enhance consumer protections by legislating the ways in which player funds must be held and remitted by licensees.

Ensuring responsible gambling is extremely important for my community, so I’m happy to see these obligations in place, as well as the provision of a point-of-consumption keno harm-minimisation framework in the bill.

The details of the framework will be determined prior to the awarding of the licence and the amendment is designed to give the minister the power to specify the harm-minimisation measures.

These harm-minimisation measures will be well received in Clarinda.

As I have mentioned, gambling is an issue in Clarinda, particularly in the City of Greater Dandenong—one of the local government areas that makes up the electorate.

Australia loses more money to gambling than any other country in the world, largely from Australians and Victorians who can least afford it.

In 2019–20, $87 million was lost to pokies in Greater Dandenong—equivalent to $650 per adult, and the highest rate of pokie losses in Victoria.

On top of pokie losses, an estimated $150 million is lost by Greater Dandenong residents each year to other legal forms of gambling, bringing total annual losses to approximately $237 million—equivalent to $1761 per adult. Total annual gambling losses represent approximately 7 per cent of all income in Greater Dandenong.

In contrast, for example in the City of Boroondara, losses are equal to just 0.7 per cent of total income.

I know from my time as a councillor at the City of Greater Dandenong that gambling causes a great deal of harm to the health and wellbeing of many of my constituents. The costs include financial stress, relationship breakdown, family violence and mental illness that comes with gambling addiction.

I know this sentiment is felt particularly strongly in many of our culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of the fantastic work that is taking place to combat problem gambling in our CALD communities.

There are some fantastic initiatives in Clarinda aimed at increasing awareness about the risks associated with gambling, increasing social connections in non-gambling environments and increasing capacity of community members to prevent and respond to problem gambling.

I know the Cambodian Association of Victoria, as well as the Australian Vietnamese Women’s Association under their rehabilitation, health and wellbeing program, have been doing some amazing work in this space.

There are a host of outstanding community groups working on this issue in my electorate and across the south-east, and I commend each and every one of them.

As well as amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act, several other acts will be amended.

This includes the Working with Children Act 2005, which will be amended to enable information sharing with the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and participation in the national reference system.

These proposed amendments will help to strengthen the protections under the act by ensuring that people who have been refused a working with children check have that information recorded in the working with children check national reference system.

By working together, these amendments represent a positive move towards a more consistent and national approach to working with children checks and most importantly greater protections for our kids, which further demonstrates Victoria’s commitment to responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

There are also amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018 to support the effective implementation of the government’s rental reform package.

This year I have spoken in support of several amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act.

These have included the important amendments to extend the residential tenancy relief scheme in response to COVID-19—to facilitate the moratorium on evictions, the ban on rent increases and on blacklisting of tenants, and the relevant dispute resolution services.

Last month there were also important reforms to enable social and affordable housing to continue to be allocated on the basis of the housing needs of eligible applicants.

I was very happy to support those important amendments, and I am happy to be supporting the amendments included in this bill which will ensure the effective implementation of the government’s rental reform package.

Finally, the bill also includes two additional small but important reforms in relation to the consumer affairs portfolio.

It will amend the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 to reflect the endorsement of a revised intergovernmental agreement by consumer affairs ministers from the commonwealth, states and territories on 30 August 2019.

And it will also amend the Rooming House Operators Act 2016 to clarify that existing licences will remain active whilst renewal applications are being processed and will not expire in the event of any administrative delay.

All in all, the bill delivers a package of reforms to a wide range of consumer laws. And in doing so, demonstrates the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to ensuring that Victorians have strong, fair and workable consumer protections.

And I commend the bill to the house.

Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers) (12:18): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr CARROLL:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (12:19): I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. We have heard that this bill actually provides for a number of amendments to transport legislation to improve its operation, and in the case of the amendments to the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Road Management Act 2004 and the Rail Management Act 1996 this is to enable and support Victoria’s extensive transport infrastructure development and works program. The bill also makes amendments and improvements to the road safety scheme and the Road Safety Act 1986, including with respect to the regulation of drink-driving and unlicensed driving offences, vehicle impoundment and immobilisation, the safety of works and activities conducted on highways, registration number rights and non-standard numberplates, and to the demerit point system.

This bill obviously covers a really significant component of this government’s transport infrastructure agenda, and that is of course the Big Build that we are conducting here in Victoria. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Transport Infrastructure for her extraordinary work in this portfolio, for her vision and for her commitment to improving the lives of millions of Victorians and for making it safer, quicker, cheaper for Victorians to move about the state by connecting communities and essentially improving the lives of so many Victorians.

Our Big Build program is just a massive program of works. It is ambitious and it is truly exciting to see this being rolled out across metropolitan Melbourne and right across regional Victoria. I think it is fair to say there is not one area in this state that is not going to benefit from these truly life-changing projects, these visionary and transformative projects. Of course, now coming out of COVID and looking to reinvigorate our economy and to build back better, these projects are going to be absolutely crucial. They are going to be crucial enablers in rebuilding our economy and rebuilding confidence in our economy and in our communities as we come out of coronavirus. We know that they are also going to create thousands and thousands and thousands more jobs. As I have said, this agenda is visionary; it is transformative for all Victorians.

I have to say this is what good government looks like. I heard the member for Prahran asking, ‘What is it? What is this Big Build agenda about?’. It is about everything. It is about improving the life of every Victorian. It is about connecting our communities. It is about transforming local communities. It about boosting productivity. It is about increasing business in the supply chains. It is about boosting business and consumer confidence. It is about making sure people get home quicker and safer to their families, connecting people to schools, to business, to medical appointments, whatever it might be. But it is about, as I said, connecting communities and ensuring that everyone is brought along with this.

I heard also the member for Prahran speak about accessibility. I think this is a really important part of the Big Build program that we are rolling out. As part of the $70 billion investment in transport infrastructure, there are going to be generational improvements to accessibility as well. I know that we are continuing to consult really widely with the disability community to ensure that their lived experiences are reflected in the design and delivery of this really important pipeline of work. Just by way of example, some of the recent improvements include 14 accessibility upgraded platforms between Camberwell and Box Hill and at Clifton Hill station, raised boarding platforms at six stations, shelters at nine stations and accessible toilets at 10 stations. Just on that, I was really pleased to see that at Carrum, as part of the level crossing removal works there, we have actually installed a Changing Places facility. That came about obviously for accessibility but also because of incredible advocacy by members of my local community, particularly children who attend the Nepean special school and who put forward a really, really important request for change and to ensure that their lived experiences are included in our local projects in the community.

We know that there will be tactile ground surface indicators at 11 stations, including the city loop stations; beacons in seven of Melbourne’s most popular stations to help passengers with vision impairment to navigate our network; and upgrades to key stops on route 96 and route 58. We are delivering 100 low-floor trams and working with manufacturers on the design of our next-generation tram with accessibility features. All this is really important. I think it is important if you are going to talk about accessibility, like the member for Prahran did, that you do not stand in the way of that. You cannot have it both ways. It was the Moreland City Council that might have opposed some of these accessible trams stops, and I call on the Greens opposite to implore their members in local council to support this pipeline of works but in particular to support accessibility on public transport. Let us not be hypocritical here when we are talking about these projects and ensuring that they are accessible for all Victorians as well.

Coming back just briefly to some of the projects—some of the really significant and exciting projects—that are taking place, like the Metro Tunnel, just recently we reached the halfway point on this project. The tunnel-boring machines have been powering along throughout coronavirus. This is a project to build five new underground stations through twin 9-kilometre tunnels to be completed in 2025. This is going to connect the Cranbourne line with the Sunbury line. What is so good about this is it frees up more capacity on the network. For me and my community it means we can run more trains more often on the Frankston line and we can actually do away with our timetables. It will just be a turn up and go on our trains, and this is really bringing us on par with other world-leading cities where public transport is just so important in terms of connecting communities and providing safer network opportunities for so many people.

And of course we have got the level crossing removal program, which is powering along as well. My community has been a significant beneficiary of that. We have removed level crossings down at Seaford Road and at Eel Race Road, at Station Street in Carrum and of course Bondi Road in Bonbeach, and we are just transforming these communities. But as well we are taking the opportunity to upgrade the surrounding amenity, the surrounding neighbourhood and also the local infrastructure. We have put in place shared-use paths, again connecting our communities, and we are building playgrounds. We recently opened the playground down at the Seaford Road level crossing removal area, and it was so incredibly well attended. I have to say for many families it is as important, perhaps more important, than the removal of the level crossing itself, and it is so wonderful now to see children and families there enjoying this incredible space for all of them. We are shortly going to open the shared-use path between Seaford and Carrum, and I know there is a lot of anticipation and excitement around that. Eventually that shared path is then going to link into the shared path that will go further north up the Frankston line as we remove level crossings at Bonbeach, Chelsea and Edithvale.

So there is just so much work happening. But as I said, these projects are more than just upgrading assets; this is about making roads better and safer. It is about making our public transport better and safer. It is about delivering local upgrades at local levels with new station buildings, better amenities, local road and intersection upgrades, car parking and new open and green spaces and of course by planting lots and lots of trees. This is such an exciting opportunity to invest in our local communities, invest in our people and support our economy as we rebuild from coronavirus and rebuild better. I absolutely commend this bill to the house.

Mr McGHIE (Melton) (12:29): I rise today to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, and I want to acknowledge the contributions from members on this side of the chamber, and in particular the member for St Albans for her passionate contribution. She raised the removal of the Main Road West and Furlong Road level crossings. I can remember incidents at those level crossings where I attended fatalities, and I am pleased to say that no longer will there be fatalities at that area of our state.

This bill contains a number of amendments, and at the heart of it are the Andrews Labor government’s Big Build projects. This government has a commitment to deliver these policies, to give Victorians much-needed transport solutions along with delivering jobs and to make sure our economy is productive and can recover from the economic impact that COVID-19 has inflicted on our state.

Victoria’s Big Build is delivering an unprecedented $70 billion infrastructure program across the state that employs 15 000 Victorians and improves the way people move around our state. Across the world we are seeing the economic impacts of COVID-19. The Andrews Labor government’s Big Build is a response to that challenge that helps create jobs but also delivers vital infrastructure that can benefit our state, increasing productivity and having assets that will ensure Victorians keep growing stronger. I want to acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure.

Importantly, this bill also delivers many road safety measures. This is something that I am passionate about because the impact road trauma has on our young people and their families is something that has stayed with me since my time serving as a paramedic. Trauma on our roads has far-reaching consequences right throughout our community, so I am pleased to see the Minister for Roads and Road Safety has once again shown his commitment to improving road safety and reducing road trauma in our state. I would like to congratulate him and his staff for this bill before this house today.

I have spoken in this house before about the impacts of road trauma and I have singled out Chris Latimer and the enormous work she has done through Road Trauma Support Services Victoria to reduce the trauma for young people after the devastating impact that road trauma has had on her own family after losing loved ones and having to care for someone who was impacted. I want to acknowledge Road Trauma Support Services and the other support services provided to families suffering from road trauma. I also give a shout-out to Margaret Markovic with her Raw to Roar project for kids affected by road trauma.

Many of the paramedics that I represented at the ambulance union along with other first responders carry the scars from our state’s roads with them into their own daily lives. You attend many road accidents where people have suffered multiple traumas which, if they survive, will take months to recover from. You remember the faces of those that have been killed. I attended an incident on the Melton Highway many years ago where two cars hit head-on. All three occupants were killed instantly. The incident has stayed with me for over 25 years. The tragedy of this incident was that it was a young couple going away on a trip who did not get there and a prison officer travelling home from work who did not arrive home. I want to take this opportunity to remember three paramedics who lost their lives while responding to emergencies: Robert Bland, Phillip Oakley and Ian Clifford. They are sadly missed.

The importance of good road safety education is something that is vital in educating our young people. Here in Victoria we have increased road safety education for young people. We have made sure that they have 120 supervised hours before they get a licence, because learner drivers need proper supervision. It is absolutely necessary that those supervisors are giving our new drivers the best road safety education possible and are not being affected by alcohol whilst teaching our young people to drive safely on our roads. Having a learner driver in your car is not a bypass to have a sober driver to get you home from the pub or a night out. Increasing the penalty for drink driving while supervising needs to be brought in line with the penalty for drink driving as a first offence of exceeding .05, because quite frankly they are putting the learner’s life at risk as well as their own and those of other road traffic drivers.

The Western Highway that cuts through my electorate is the second-busiest national highway in Australia in terms of freight movement, with over 5 million tonnes annually being moved. It provides the link between the eastern seaboard, South Australia and Western Australia. The high volume of freight traffic coming through my electorate impacts my constituents greatly, partly due to less options for public transport being available in Melton. More than 63 per cent of households in the City of Melton have access to two or more vehicles compared with 51 per cent in greater Melbourne, and 93.1 per cent of residents travel by car in Melton. This means that commuters in Melton are exposed to these high levels of freight travelling through the electorate. Clearly there is a greater risk of harm if heavy vehicles crash. I have seen it firsthand as a paramedic and in driving through my electorate. And again I recall another incident I attended where a heavy vehicle rear-ended a stationary vehicle turning right. The young woman driver was incinerated before she could even release the seatbelt. This was a tragic incident and probably an avoidable incident.

Drivers of large vehicles captured in this legislation are commercial drivers, and there is never a good reason to be drinking while driving for work. In Victoria other commercial drivers like taxi and Uber drivers are already subject to zero BAC. I am also pleased to see that this legislation addresses alcohol interlocks for drink drivers. Alcohol interlocks for drink drivers getting their licence back has been a successful measure to combat drink driving. It has been effective in separating drinking behaviour from driving behaviour. It is vital that this regulation stays as a strong deterrent to those who think getting behind the wheel after drinking is a good idea. Breaching interlock requirements, such as tampering with an interlock, is a serious offence. Increasing the maximum court penalty for tampering with an interlock device is something that I wholeheartedly support. Interlock conditions are a requirement to drive legally, so breaching an interlock condition is effectively unlicensed driving and the penalty applicable should mirror that. This bill aligns interlock penalties with penalties for driving whilst disqualified.

Anyone who has driven the roads in Victoria knows that there is more work being done than ever before. Our economy used to be valued by cranes in the sky, but now you can see the work is being done across many of our roads. We know that this work disrupts the network and inconveniences people. It is a short-term pain for a long-term gain. Our frustration now will minimise the potential for future frustrations, but the Andrews Labor government are working to minimise those disruptions. It is easy to understand why commuters can be exasperated when a closed worksite is still slowing speeds and delaying traffic. Our ‘safer speed, safer sites’ policy requires the lifting of speed limits around construction areas when construction work finishes for the day. The bill will deliver on the policy commitment to introduce a corporate penalty of up to 300 penalty units for traffic management breaches, including not returning roads to a safe speed when construction work finishes for the day.

Impounding vehicles for hoon offences has had clear road safety benefits. Taking away offenders’ vehicles is a practical step to stop more offending. It sends a clear message to the offender that their behaviour is not accepted by Victorians. This obviously also immediately prevents them from using that vehicle to offend further. For many offenders it makes them re-evaluate their behaviour and is a deterrent to reoffending. However, the impoundment regime comes with significant cost. In 2018–19 there were 11 090 vehicles impounded. Of these, 2882 vehicles were deemed abandoned, and most of the cars that were abandoned were so old or in such poor condition that they were not worth the cost required for people to pick them up. Abandoned vehicles are putting police storage facilities under strain. This bill contains changes aimed at freeing up space at impoundment facilities to accommodate future vehicles. Under the current regime, the time it takes to have a vehicle deemed abandoned is 37 days. That is made up of a waiting period of seven days and a notice period of 30 days. This bill will reduce that notice period from 30 days to 14 days. There is a hardship scheme for those people who cannot afford to collect their vehicle within the required period. This ensures that there are no unintended consequences associated with the reduction in time. The bill also allows Victoria Police to temporarily use and possibly destroy abandoned vehicles for training purposes prior to disposal. Only vehicles of negligible sale value will be destroyed for training purposes.

In particular the bill will enable the application of drink-driving and drunk-driving restrictions to the vehicles of motorised technology, such as mobile scooters, if their use is permitted by government under the road rules at a later date. This is an important amendment that helps this government deliver on its commitment to Victorians and help keep Victorians safe. I support this legislation and I commend this bill to the house, and I look forward to its speedy passage.

Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (12:39): I am really excited today to join my colleagues on this side of the house in rising to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. I have got lots of great things to say about this bill and about the Big Build, an incredible amount of infrastructure that our government is delivering right now right across Victoria and, most importantly, closer to my heart in the outer west, but I cannot start without actually reflecting on the member for Prahran’s contribution to the house today on this bill.

Over the past couple of years I have sat here and listened intently and quietly to the contributions by the Greens. But to sit in my office earlier this morning listening to his contribution about the infrastructure that the Andrews Labor government is building in the state had me quite riled up and very angry indeed. There are many reasons for that. It strikes me that the member for Prahran is a man that has only ever really visited the train stations of Windsor and Prahran. I say to the member for Prahran: I too have stood on those platforms. I was one of those happy women, happy mums with a double pram, that you talked about and wanted to see more of on our public transport network. But it has become pretty obvious to me over the last two years that I have listened to their contributions that it is not just the member for Prahran that has not ventured across the West Gate Bridge and ventured out west into places like Tarneit and Melton. They come in here and they stand in this place and they talk about population growth and they spout numbers. They talk about the number of people, the growth in this state, but they have never actually come out and seen it. They have never seen what happens when you have tens of thousands of people on a daily basis sitting in their cars trying to get to the entrance of the West Gate Bridge to cross that bridge to go to work. That is why investments in things like the West Gate Tunnel, the level crossing removals right across the state—and I have to say there are three level crossings that are going to be removed in Wyndham in my electorate on Old Geelong Road, or as we like to say, ‘Hoppers is losing its Crossing’—and the $1.8 billion investment that this government is getting on with to deliver roads in the west are important.

The majority of that money being spent is in my electorate. We are upgrading roads that have not been upgraded for too long. I talk to people in my community and they say that it has taken too long to upgrade these roads, but they do agree that the upgrades—the widening, the duplication, and in some circumstances when it comes to Leakes Road in particular, the triplication—that $1.8 billion worth of investment, means that every single day people in my electorate can drive around in their cars and they will notice the difference from this money being spent.

I invite the member for Prahran to look around his electorate—because what he might not know is that I am someone that not only spends a lot of time in my electorate but I love getting out and about and experiencing all the great things that Melbourne has to offer and also what we have to offer in the regions and in rural Victoria—and I say to the member for Prahran, ‘I invite you to go to Izett Street, right there in the heart of Prahran. There is a little cafe there, a great cafe, called Babble Bar and Cafe’. It is run by a local family that live in my electorate, that live in Tarneit. Let me tell you that is a hell of a long way to travel on a daily basis. This cafe is open seven days a week. So I popped in to say hello to Mayur and Nehal, who I say congratulations to because they have just given birth to their second child as of last week. This is a growing family with two young kids. They are very much the demographic of my local electorate—a young couple with two young children.

Now this couple do not catch public transport over to Prahran. They get up in the morning and they get in their car. I have no idea what they do with their children and I have no idea how hard this is going to be with a newborn baby, but they get up every morning, and they must get up really early. I would say it is probably somewhere around 4.00 am—I say to the member for Prahran, and I know that he has children, I bet you don’t get up at 4.00 am to get on public transport to go to work or you don’t get up at 4.00 am to get dressed in the dark, get into your car and then spend the next 2 hours gridlocked in traffic—and that is to get to the entrance to the West Gate Bridge.

And that is why the West Gate Tunnel is life-changing. It is a life-changing visionary project that will be delivered by this Labor government. It has not been without its issues or its challenges, but let me tell you, as I say to people in my electorate, in Wyndham: yes, we have our challenges ahead of us, but by God we need that tunnel delivered. It is going to knock off 20 minutes each way for people in the west. You know, I am really keen to see once that tunnel is open how long it will actually knock off for commuters in Tarneit, for people like Mayur and Nehal there at Babble Bar and Cafe.

Now, the member for Prahran—and I just found this absolutely patronising, a disgusting display of what the Greens actually think is happening in this state—was talking about being on the platforms of Windsor and Prahran train stations and customers looking around for friendly ticket staff to buy their ticket from. Well, mate, I invite you officially to come to Tarneit station. You will have to get up early. I suggest it would be something around 5.00 am, and then you can actually come out and you can see the traffic that is there at 5.00 am. It is all lit up—you could see it from the moon. And they are gridlocked way, way back. They are coming in from Geelong. A lot of Geelong people come along and cross Tarneit in their cars, but they also cross Tarneit through Tarneit train station there on the V/Line on their way to the city. When you come out to Tarneit station you need to be there, I say to the member for Prahran, by 7.00 am. Because do you know what happens at 7.00 am? You get to our car park—and there are 1000 car parks at this station—and it is full. We are building another 500 extra car parks. You know, that might be something that when you talk about the stations at Prahran and Windsor you struggle to get your head around. People find it difficult to walk to Tarneit train station. It sits out there at the moment in the middle of this huge field.

Now, in the very near future we are going to have 1500 spaces at this car park, but when you come out you had better have your Myki card ready. You will not want to go and buy a ticket. Let me tell you why: because those 1000 car parks are full. They are full by 7.00 am, and you will walk up, you will want to swipe your card and you will want to get on that platform. You will not be looking around for waves and good mornings from friendly ticket staff. You will be looking for a crowd controller there on the platform. There are a hell of a lot of people trying to get on the train at this station. This train station is the second-busiest station outside of Southern Cross on the V/Line. This is a huge, huge station.

So when you get onto the platform and you look around you might not see any familiar faces, and the train will arrive and if you are really lucky you will be able to get on that train—because the trains coming in from Geelong are packed, they are crowded, which is why we are building bigger trains and which most importantly is why we have the Western Rail Plan. Because do you know what Tarneit needs? Tarneit needs to get off the V/Line. It needs to get off the V/Line, and it needs to be on the metro line. We would have more trains running more often, and—this is what the member for Prahran, if he came out to this station, would realise—you might even get a seat. And I can tell you something: as a mum with a pram commuting into the city, this is not a trip that takes 2 or 3 minutes. This is a trip that takes some time, and something you will be after is a seat.

I know I have talked about the member for Prahran and his absolute delusions about what is happening in this state, but it is for these reasons and because of our government’s investment under this Big Build that this bill is going to help facilitate that I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (12:49): I rise to speak today on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. It is always a very fine contribution from the member for Tarneit, there for her community telling the stories and real-life experiences of her rapidly growing community and bringing to the house what is actually happening on the ground in her electorate. On the flipside, the other side of the state, we have very similar experiences—probably not the second-busiest station to Southern Cross, but we do have the V/Line intersecting with Pakenham. Car parks are full. We have got Cranbourne and there is the whole south-east—people driving to one car park and then going to another train station trying to find a car park. So in the Big Build we are building a lot more car parks for our community. Also with Pakenham—and I will go on to talk about Pakenham soon—we are removing every level crossing on that line. One will be gone very, very soon—the Cardinia Road one—which we are thrilled about. That will be removed from this physical world in December, which is just next month. We have already started work on the three in Pakenham, which will mean when they are gone the whole line will be level crossing free. And there will be a super-station, a bus interchange and a third platform for our V/Line commuters coming down through Warragul.

On to the bill, we know that the law is always a very complex thing and, like life, some of us find the detail quite fascinating while others just want the big picture in 3-second grabs. So when a bill called the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 comes along with its 58 clauses I can understand it is not everyone’s cup of tea. But if we dissect this and have a look, this is the biggest infrastructure agenda—which the member for Tarneit also spoke about—in our state’s history. It is approximately $70 billion invested in over 100 road and rail projects. That is 18 000 people in Victorian jobs. That is time saved waiting in traffic or waiting at a train station. It is the biggest infrastructure agenda of our state, local infrastructure, where fairness, safety and common sense are the absolute hallmarks of our Andrews Labor government.

In my electorate of Bass, going on to roads, the sealing works, for example, on the Princess Freeway and the Princes Highway east during the year made the journey for 28 000 motorists safer and easier each day, supported 1500 jobs and filled in more than 200 000 potholes. In future with this bill even the inconvenience of the work will be reduced. The ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy delivers on a commitment and requires the lifting of speed limits around construction sites when work finishes for the day. The safety of workers is paramount and every worker has the right to be safe at work, but we all know the frustration of reduced speed limits because no-one took the signs away at the end of the day. So with this bill there are corporate penalties for not returning the site to a form which safely minimises disruption to vehicles after hours, and this helps motorists, workers and, for example, bus drivers as well. Keeping to a timetable is hard enough for our bus drivers without unnecessarily going slow on certain stretches of the road.

In Bass, I might just highlight that in our very growing suburbs of Clyde and Clyde North we are talking about the Cranbourne duplication, being the last 8 kilometres of single track in Melbourne which is being duplicated, and we are planning to extend it to Clyde. There is a lack of public transport in this growth area. I am very pleased—and I spoke to it yesterday—about the two new bus services that are coming in in March 2021, bus routes 888 and 889. Our drivers, with this legislation, will be more confident in getting our great residents in our Clyde and Clyde North area to their destinations on time. So in my electorate of Bass there are the level crossing removals and also the Cranbourne line works.

Now, there is a little-known fact that since the Lands Compensation Statute 1869—that is quite a long time ago—the state has had some rail crossings on private land, and this means that in some cases train speeds need to be reduced at the crossing, and that makes the journey again longer and undermines the investment that we are making in the rail network. I did speak of the Gippsland rail service, and again, my electorate is home to the Gippsland V/Line service. The $2 billion regional rail revival program is part of the Big Build program and will see the upgrading of every regional passenger line in Victoria—so more services, faster services and 1000 jobs created. Just further to what the member for Tarneit was saying around trains—that we are making bigger trains—they are actually maintained and will be serviced up at our Pakenham depot. So there is a lot happening in our Pakenham area in terms of jobs and rail and big projects and also in that Big Build of actually making and maintaining our high-capacity trains.

In my electorate of Bass too we have towing services, small businesses that are family owned and operated—hardworking people. Before this amendment bill it was interesting to learn that a tow truck driver was not allowed to transport other people such as family members when the vehicle was not being used for accident towing. So a mum or dad could not drop the kids off at school on the way somewhere when they had the vehicle even though they had seatbelts fitted and everything was safe. This bill allows that to change. Now a tow truck will be allowed to carry passengers such as family members when they are not engaged in towing, so that is a commonsense win really for everyone.

Coming back to my original point: legislation is a complex thing, but the little things can make a huge difference to the lives of people affected. We also have a lot of roads in my electorate of Bass. We have freeways and highways, suburban streets and country roads, and we have a lot of people driving on these roads. You may ask, ‘What’s that got to do with this bill?’. It actually has a lot. Before this amendment bill only drivers of large vehicles, which meant they weighed over 15 tonnes, were required to have a zero blood alcohol concentration. This will change that to 4.5 tonnes. A 4.5-tonne vehicle is still driven by a commercial driver, and there is no reason for those drivers to have been drinking and then to take to the road. We all know that there is a greater risk of harm when a heavy vehicle crashes. We are unapologetic about being tough on those who put the lives of others at risk. It is not about being a wowser either; it is all about safety. Tradespeople with utes, motorhomes driven with a car licence and little white vans are not included, but if you drive a truck, you should have a blood alcohol level of zero.

We also have a lot of learner drivers in my electorate of Bass, learners who need the very best supervisors when they get behind the wheel. Yet while other drink-driving penalties have changed over time, the maximum penalty for a supervising driver over .05 has remained the same. This amendment increases that maximum penalty fourfold, to 20 penalty units or over $3000. We want our learner drivers to have the best supervision when they take to the road, and this government is very clear that supervisors must take their responsibilities seriously.

Unfortunately, even in my electorate of Bass people abandon cars. The Scenic Estate Conservation Reserve on Phillip Island—Millowl, in Boon Wurrung—takes in these breathtaking views of the Ramsar wetlands in Western Port Bay. Anyway, a few years ago I was there and it was like a scene out of the film The Cars That Ate Paris with the number of cars that were dredged up out of this beautiful part of the world. Moving on to impounded vehicles, one-fifth of our 11 000 impounded vehicles were deemed abandoned and this puts police storage facilities under enormous pressure.

I might just have to start almost wrapping up, with 24 seconds to go. The bill also talks about personalised numberplates, which we have heard many members speak to. Again, there are 58 clauses dealing with a range of issues that may only affect a few people at any one time but collectively have a big impact—less frustration on the roads. I commend the bill to the house.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 10 November.

Members

Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence

Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation

Minister for Crime Prevention

Minister for Police and Emergency Services

Absence

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:01): I rise to update the house that I will today answer in the place of the ministers for Aboriginal affairs, prevention of family violence and women; consumer affairs, gaming and liquor regulation, ports and freight, and fishing and boating; crime prevention, corrections, youth justice and victim support; and water and police and emergency services.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Casey planning

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Premier. Philip Staindl, a life member of the Labor Party and a paid lobbyist for John Woodman, gave sworn evidence to IBAC that you discussed the Aviators Field development with Mr Woodman. How does the Premier stand by his previous claim that he had never ever discussed particular planning matters with John Woodman when Philip Staindl has now given sworn evidence under oath to the contrary?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:02): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. IBAC is running a process. They are looking at some very serious matters—matters that relate to the conduct of many different people, some of whom the Leader of the Opposition seems to have forgotten about and does not like to mention. But let us not be diverted by that. All I will say is this: it has never been my practice, nor will it ever be my practice, to essentially interfere in processes that are very important and are ongoing. I stand by all the comments I have made and the fact that people in this government behave appropriately.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the question simply goes to the—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Deputy Premier and the Manager of Opposition Business to come to order.

Mr M O’Brien: The question goes to the Premier’s previous comments that he made. I am calling on him to justify how he can stand by those comments given sworn evidence that has been given in IBAC. There is nothing that prevents the Premier from justifying—or not—his own previous comments. I ask you to draw him back to answering the perfectly important and legitimate question that I have asked.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to the question that you asked and has concluded his answer.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): The Premier has previously said of corrupt property developer John Woodman, who was one of his earliest political donors:

He has never raised active planning matters with me …

My question is: was the Aviators Field development an active planning matter when John Woodman raised it with the Premier in September 2015 or is this yet another matter that he does not recall?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:04): As I have just indicated, Speaker, these matters are very live. They are before IBAC—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, these matters and, for instance, the conduct of people like Lorraine Wreford, Mr Ablett, Geoff Leigh, can I go on—many, many people—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, the notion of who is a life member of this party and who is a life member of that, you do not get to make these comments without everyone being clear on the context and where this started. Where it will end, Speaker, is a matter for IBAC, and I do not intend to cut across that process—not now, not ever.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, it is a simple factual question of whether the Aviators Field development was an active planning matter in September 2015. It is a simple question of fact. I ask you to bring the Premier back to answering that simple question of fact.

The SPEAKER: The Premier was being relevant to the question then did stray. He has concluded his answer.

Ministers statements: mental health funding

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (14:05): Our mental health system is broken. It is why we established a Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and have committed to deliver on all of its recommendations. The impact of the global pandemic has added to its urgency, so I was delighted to join the Premier earlier today to announce a massive $868.6 million boost to provide funding to deliver on both the interim recommendations to rebuild our mental health system and to respond to demand right now to ensure Victorians have the mental health support they need.

This includes $492 million to deliver 120 mental health beds in Geelong, Epping, Sunshine and Melbourne. Tenders for these beds will be out before the end of the year, and construction will commence in mid-2021. This is in addition to the 24 hospital-in-the-home beds announced earlier this year, bringing the total number of beds to 144 over and above what was recommended in the interim report of the royal commission. This will support thousands of Victorians. An additional $18.9 million is provided for 35 acute treatment beds for public mental health patients in private health services. We are investing $21.4 million to complete the statewide rollout of the hospital outreach post-suicidal engagement services in Albury-Wodonga, Bairnsdale, Ballarat, Broadmeadows, Box Hill, Clayton, Epping, Heidelberg, Mildura, Parkville, Shepparton and Warrnambool.

As we begin the work to rebuild our system, learning from the lived experience of Victorians is vital, so we are providing $2.2 million to design the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing, which will bring together researchers, academics and those who have experienced mental health issues. A further $16 million will help those same Victorians use their own personal experience to support others in need, with new training positions, education and opportunities for employment.

I know that we will have much more to do. We are looking forward with anticipation to the final report of the royal commission in February next year, but we are not wasting a moment, and this budget in two weeks will deliver a massive boost, because we are up for the challenge both now and in February next year.

Casey planning

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): My question is to the Premier. In September 2017 when the Premier dined at the Flower Drum with dodgy developer John Woodman and tellingly his commercial interest team, was a departmental probity officer also present?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:08): No, I do not believe there was any representative from the Department of Premier and Cabinet or any other government department there.

A member interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, as difficult as it might be for the Leader of the Opposition, when you behave appropriately in all things and at all times these matters are not relevant. If only we had had somebody from a government department monitoring all the horses that were owned but did not actually exist, all the suitcases and brown paper bags going between one member of the Liberal Party and another—if only we had had someone keeping an eye on that. The Leader of the Opposition likes to play games with this stuff—

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is clearly debating the question. It was a very simple question as to whether a departmental probity officer was present. If the Premier has answered it, there is no need for him to say any more. We now know there was not a department probity officer there.

The SPEAKER: Order! I agree with the point of order. The Premier has answered the question. The Premier, to continue.

Mr ANDREWS: I will, Speaker, if you are prepared to invite me to. There are some, who in asking questions like this and in their feigned outrage and their expectation about who should be in what meeting and playing what function, I think what they are really doing is they are reflecting their own standards, their own conduct, their own expectations of malfeasance, their own lived experience of appalling behaviour. That is not my position—not now, not ever.

Mr Walsh: On a further point of order, Speaker, the Premier was clearly debating the question again—and I know I could never, ever afford to pay the fee that he charges to have dinner with him.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): The Premier has previously said that if dodgy developer John Woodman had ever raised active planning matters with him:

… I would have stood up and left.

Premier, why then did you dine at the Flower Drum with the commercial interest team of John Woodman if you were not there to talk about planning matters?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:10): The Leader of the Opposition yet again—

A member interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: No, there was no lobster there. No, there was none. No, we will leave that to others. We will leave that to others who could not spell probity, let alone actually deliver it in any of the decisions they made in all of the miserable time they spent as a minister of the Crown, unaware of their obligations and unconcerned by them as well. The Leader of the Opposition can crow as much as he wants—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat.

Mr ANDREWS: but he reflects on himself with his line of questioning.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. The Leader of the Nationals, when the house comes to order.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue again that the Premier is debating the question. It was a very simple question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I would ask you to draw the Premier back to answering that question. He met with the commercial team of John Woodman. What were they there for if they were not there to talk about planning issues?

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

Mr ANDREWS: I have dealt with the question as asked, but just for the benefit of the leader of the once National Party let me be very clear about this: no-one in this government—no-one—is taking lectures on accountability or appropriate behaviour—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: If only I had my well-worn copy of that Ombudsman’s report into the Office of Living it Up, where the only water they generated was Perrier—that is all they ever generated. As if anyone in this government is going to be lectured by the likes of you on probity. It is a good thing you are wearing a mask, because we know you are laughing.

Ministers statements: COVID-19

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:12): Figures released this week show that consumer and business confidence is roaring back in Victoria. This confidence reflects the community’s understanding that Victoria is getting the virus under control, thanks to the good work of each and every Victorian, who have made their contributions, who have been inconvenienced and often have endured enormous hardship but nonetheless have endured. Our economy is now in a position to open up safely and steadily as we head towards the path of COVID normal. Before coronavirus of course Victoria was the engine room of this nation, and we will resume that position. We are on our way back and we are making the effort and investment to ensure that that occurs. Data released this week shows that the Victorian business confidence index is now 11, more than double the national figure, and Victorian consumer confidence has risen to 107, also above the national average.

Make no mistake, the upswing in confidence in our economy is a direct result of the incredible work that Victorians have done to control the coronavirus crisis. We know from the evidence around the world that making the effort to deal with the virus is not only the best way to save lives but is the best way to put ourselves in a position for a sustained economic recovery. There were alternative plans that were being shopped by the opposition to open up the state too early. These plans would have cost Victorians their success against the virus and the corresponding business and consumer confidence that we now enjoy. The upcoming budget will make the necessary investments to give Victorian businesses, families and workers the confidence they need to support our economic recovery.

Ministerial conduct

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): My question is again to the Premier. The Minister for Planning has stated to the Parliament and to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee that a probity auditor attends all meetings and events that he has where developers are present. Is it government policy that departments are responsible for ensuring the presence of probity auditors at meetings between government ministers and developers?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:15): I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it provides me with an opportunity to clear up a couple of matters as he clearly has absolutely no understanding of how the planning system works in this state. When the Minister for Planning under an act of this Parliament, presumably one that was supported by those opposite, makes a decision on advice after a process—often panels, often detailed advice from his department having tested all the different elements of any proposition that might be put before the minister—it is the Minister for Planning that holds these powers. These matters do not go to cabinet. These matters do not go to a cabinet committee. These matters do not come to me or any other minister in the government. As someone who has served in the cabinet for four years—did not do much but was there, was in the room for four years—he ought to know that.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of relevance, the question was very clear from the Leader of the Opposition: is it departmental responsibility to have probity auditors present at any ministers meeting where planning matters may be discussed? I would ask you to bring the Premier back to actually answering that question, please.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to that question.

Mr ANDREWS: The question was no such thing. That was not what the Leader of the Opposition asked. The Leader of the Opposition’s question showed his ignorance and the point of order only confirms that fact for everybody. The Minister for Planning is the active decision-maker.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker. I am just trying to help the Premier here because I think he may have misunderstood or misheard the question. This is very important because I believe the Premier is debating the question. The question was: is it government policy that departments are responsible for ensuring the presence of probity auditors at meetings between government ministers and developers? The question did not go to who makes decisions on planning matters. It went to who is responsible for the presence of probity auditors. Is it government departments?

Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, I wish to make two points. The first is the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that points of order are not an opportunity to repeat the question, and I ask that if he continues to misuse the practice of points of order that you no longer hear him on the point of order. Secondly, the question from the Leader of the Opposition clearly went to matters that involve the Minister for Planning, probity auditors and government policy, and the Premier was being entirely consistent with the standing orders and the procedures of this house in answering his question and was being relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that you rule out the constant points of order that are being raised by those opposite and allow the Premier to continue to answer his question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members that repeating the question through a point of order is out of order, although in this particular case I think the Leader of the Opposition was genuinely trying to alleviate a misunderstanding. But the Premier is being relevant to the question that has been asked.

Mr ANDREWS: As the question alluded to comments made by the planning minister about probity auditors, I am simply confirming not just for the Leader of the Opposition but for all honourable members that probity auditors are in attendance where that is deemed appropriate. From a personal point of view, when I was the gaming minister and active decision-maker with responsibilities under an act of Parliament, then I would have probity auditors with me where that was deemed appropriate. The planning minister deals with these matters of development and of approval or otherwise, not as a function of policy but as a function of statute. These powers rest with him, not with any other member of the government and not subject to the consideration or deliberation of any other forum within the government. Probity auditors are there when it is deemed appropriate for them to be there to protect the integrity of any process. I think it stands to reason that if you are not in the process as a matter of policy or as a function of law, then the probity auditor rightly would be with the Minister for Planning in his dealings but is not required in a vast array of circumstances, not just in planning but in many different areas of public administration. Beyond that, both I as the chair of the cabinet and every minister is sworn, and we take our responsibilities under that oath of office very seriously in each and every thing that we do at all times and in all things.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:20): Documents obtained through the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner reveal the planning department has advised that the probity auditor referred to by the Minister for Planning is engaged by Progressive Business. Progressive Business, Premier, is the Labor Party’s fundraising arm. How long has the fox been in charge of the henhouse when it comes to your government’s integrity?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Maybe the Leader of the Opposition wishes to rephrase the last part of that question.

Mr M O’BRIEN: Documents obtained through the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner reveal the planning department has advised that the probity auditor referred to by the Minister for Planning is engaged by Progressive Business. Progressive Business is the Labor Party’s fundraising arm. Is it government policy that the Labor Party’s fundraising arm should be in charge of engaging probity auditors?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:21): Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary question. Who a political party or an associated entity of a political party chooses to act as their auditor, their accountant or their probity auditor is not a matter for me. That is a matter for that political party. And as to any link to the process that saw a body that is not part of the government and certainly not part of my responsibilities to this house as the Premier and chair of the cabinet, the question has been asked. There is absolutely no connection or any relevance between a decision that a political party might make to engage, for instance, a firm and a government department that might engage that same firm. The Leader of the Opposition is great at throwing things around. In fact he is not that great at it actually. He is not good at it all really. It is all smear and no substance, much like his good self.

Ministers statements: infrastructure projects

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (14:22): I am very pleased to provide an update to the house on the terrific progress of the Andrews Labor government’s transport infrastructure investment, a $70 billion pipeline with 119 major road and rail projects that are going on right around the state and, most importantly, employing tens of thousands of Victorians on this program.

I want to start with the Metro Tunnel, a project that is already a full year ahead of schedule. To be a year ahead on a project of this size and scale is a significant achievement in its own right, but I want to take the opportunity today to thank every single worker on this project, some of whom the Premier and I had the great pleasure to meet with last Friday, for making sure that this project stayed a full year ahead of schedule during the coronavirus pandemic.

Not only is the Metro Tunnel a year ahead of schedule but we have got 43 level crossings that have been removed—one every six weeks on average—and we have got another 15 sites where we have got level crossings currently being removed in places across Melbourne from Chelsea to Glenroy and from Werribee to Lilydale. As some drivers might be returning to driving along the Monash Freeway, they can see the tremendous progress on adding lanes on that road to reduce travel times. Works are underway on the Cranbourne line duplication and about to start on the Hurstbridge line. Every regional rail line, including Shepparton, is getting an upgrade, and work is well advanced on our various road projects across the state, including the bridge over the Murray at Echuca.

There are so many projects, but our program is looking to get bigger. There is the airport rail and the Suburban Rail Loop, and we have also got exciting rail projects for Shepparton and Warrnambool and more exciting suburban and regional road projects in the pipeline as well. I could not help but notice earlier this week that a press statement was put out urging that projects be wound back—projects like the North East Link, the Metro Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop—because they should be seen as a last resort. Those opposite continue to oppose our program. We are pushing on and delivering the projects Victorians voted for.

Crown Casino

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:25): My question is to the minister for gambling. It is a shame that she is not here, but I will ask it of the Premier, who is a previous minister for gambling as well. Over the course of the recent New South Wales inquiry into Crown Casino we have once again heard examples of dodgy and illegal behaviour by Crown. From evidence of money laundering to links to organised crime, drug trafficking and also human trafficking, it is clear that Crown’s behaviour knows no limits. Last week the New South Wales Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority heard that Crown was not a suitable person to hold a casino licence in New South Wales. Premier, do you believe that Crown is still fit to hold a casino licence here in Victoria?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:25): The member for Melbourne is correct when she says that the minister for gaming is not here, although I am more than happy to provide some general comments and then I will refer the question to her and she can respond in writing.

In terms of the number of statements and comments made in the member for Melbourne’s question, what she is referring to are not findings. These are submissions that have been made by counsel assisting a process, a very important process, but not one that is finalised, not one that is finished and not one that has written a report or made any findings whatsoever. It is, I know, very convenient for the member for Melbourne to present these things as if they are a final report or as if they are findings of fact and it is a settled matter, but that is not what has occurred in Sydney.

As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, that process will come to its logical conclusion in February next year and there will be a report and there will be findings. It is not the government as such in the first instance but our regulators, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) who do this work every day of every year—and not just in relation to Crown but in relation to every holder of a licence, although Crown is unique given that it has its own act of Parliament, it has its own place in our state and it is the only licence of its kind.

I want also to reject any notion that the government does not take it seriously at a level within the government—the cabinet and every member of the government. But beyond that I want to make sure that in relation to those dedicated staff at the VCGLR and others—our partners interstate and internationally—no-one is left in any doubt that the government, through all of its members and those who regulate and those who enforce Victorian law, are all absolutely committed to only the highest of standards in this industry. I have some personal experience, having had the great honour, as I alluded to earlier on, for a short period of time to have been the minister for gaming—some would say it was an appropriate amount of time. I certainly thought so; I moved on to other things. But this is a complex, very well regulated industry, and it needs to be because there is great potential for malfeasance and there is great potential for all manner of unscrupulous behaviour. But before you assume that has occurred you need to wait for processes to conclude. You need to wait for findings. I am very confident, and I will confirm for the member for Melbourne, that when that process has concluded in New South Wales our regulators and regulators the world over will look at those findings, and they will look at them in WA, where that business has interests as well. This is a well-connected global industry that looks to these issues of probity and accountability every minute of every day. (Time expired)

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:28): I appreciate the points raised by the Premier, but these are far from the first allegations of wrongdoing by Crown. It is clear that Crown has been doing the wrong thing and in fact breaking the law for many years, but it does seem like the regulator and the government have been letting them get away with it. In October 2019, more than a year ago, I asked in this place about allegations of money laundering and links to organised crime at Crown, and the minister at the time ordered the VCGLR to conduct an urgent inquiry into the matter. But it has been more than a year now, and more than a year later this so-called urgent inquiry still has not released any report. Premier, what happened to this urgent inquiry?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:29): I thank the member for Melbourne for her supplementary question. I will need to make inquiries with the VCGLR. I will do that at the conclusion of question time, and I will ask the minister to come back to the honourable member in relation to the specifics of that inquiry. I do again though feel obliged in the 45 seconds left to me not to let slip through that the member for Melbourne has just said ‘allegations’ and then proceeded to race to the next sentence, which was ‘It is clear that they have been doing (a), (b) and (c) and that you have been letting them get away with it’.

Those two sentences are not compatible, they are not truthful, they are not logical and they should not go uncontested, and they will not go uncontested. You can say what you like about members of the government. That is fair enough, particularly on the floor of this chamber. Robust debate is a good thing. But please do not impugn the reputations of people who work every day and work very, very hard—public servants who serve the public interest and uphold the highest of standards. I will not have people at the VCGLR, or any other public servant, described in those terms.

Ministers statements: screen industry

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (14:30): I rise to update the house on how our government is backing Victoria’s screen industry. Screen culture is firmly embedded in our lives, and the pandemic has only seen this demand grow. Global demand for screen content is insatiable, from traditional film and television to streaming to digital gaming. We are supporting Victorian creative industries to get on with production of screen content, and we are making Victoria more competitive to attract investment and increase exports from the industry.

Yesterday I visited the Noble Park set of Liam Neeson’s new film, Blacklight, a project we were delighted to support. Liam was astonished at how the state has grown. While on set I was proud to announce a record investment of $33.8 million in Victorian screen productions and programs. That means more opportunities for 10 000-plus screen industry workers in Victoria. This investment allows more international projects like Blacklight to be shot right here, and this is an example of how one global production alone can employ over 800 locals on urban and regional sets. But we are backing local content and talent too, because for every dollar invested in the screen industry more than $14 is generated for the Victorian economy.

This package supports Melbourne as Australia’s undisputed home of digital game development. More than half of Australia’s game industry is based right here, and 90 per cent of games made in Victoria are for export. Last year’s global hit, the untitled ‘goose game’, is Victorian, and its success across the world has seen all eyes turn to our vibrant and brilliant games industry. This success only happens with a government that invests in its people, and this is how the screen industry breathes its magic into our creative state. But there is more to come, much more to come: 24 November is going to be a great day.

Political donations

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Premier. Progressive Business is the ALP’s fundraising arm, which documents show engages probity auditors for the benefit of government ministers in contrast to the accepted practice of probity auditors being apolitical departmental officers. The former president of Progressive Business, Philip Staindl, is now before IBAC, detailing how he funnelled political donations from corrupt developer John Woodman to this Labor government. The Labor Party’s fundraising arm has been put in charge of policing political donations to this Labor government. How is this not corruption?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:33): As bemused as I might be as to how this would relate to government business, let me just make a couple of comments in answer to the question that has been asked. One wonders whether other political parties engage probity auditors. One wonders whether other political parties and their associated entities engage probity auditors. One minute the Leader of the Opposition is all for probity auditors, the next minute apparently it is a bad thing to have a probity auditor to protect probity. You need to organise your thoughts a little better, or have a thought to begin with.

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: The notion that donations are made to the Victorian government is simply wrong. It is simply wrong. Donations, if they are made to a political party, are declared under an act of this Parliament. But while we are talking about donations, having already reminded people about Mr Ablett and Ms Wreford and Mr Aziz and a few others that the Leader of the Opposition seems to have forgotten about, let me remind all honourable members about something else: it is this government that fundamentally changed the way fundraising in this state is done.

I well remember. I never thought I would want to see the member for Warrandyte in the chamber. It has never occurred to me before that it would be good to have the member for Warrandyte here, but I wish he were sitting across from me because I would be able to remind him of agreements that he reached with the Special Minister of State at the time, Mr Jennings, about delivering fundamental election campaign financing reform.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, the Leader of The Nationals.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, we do not like this!

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is clearly debating the question now. I know we cannot repeat the question, but the core of the question was very much about having Progressive Business actually employing the auditor for ministerial meetings and was that not corruption of this government.

Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, on two matters. The Premier is being relevant to the question that was asked, because it did go to questions of fundraising. Can I also, on the second point make the point that the question was so unrelated to government business, was so broad in its scope in the way that it was unrelated to government business, that I think it is entirely allowable for the Premier in responding to this question to canvass the issues he is discussing, because he is at least being relevant to both the question and the standing orders of this place.

Mr Wells: Further to the point of order, Speaker, I would have thought that it is the business of every member of Parliament in this house to deal with corruption. If there are any accusations, we have the right to hold the executive government to account about corrupt activity. That is the core business, and I would ask you to bring the Premier back to answering the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! The question was a broad one, and the Premier is being relevant to it.

Mr ANDREWS: It is a point of pride for this government to have fundamentally changed the way donations are made in terms of the whole political process. Our Victorian democracy is fundamentally changed by virtue of reforms that we put through this place and the other place. I well remember that there were some who liked to be associated with these reforms. They are unique in our country, and I commend them to other first ministers, to other political parties and to other parliaments. They are unique in our nation—they are—and they will continue to serve us well. The time had come to make a very big change. I well remember that there were some who liked to be associated with that. You could even say that an agreement was reached, that there was a sense of partnership and that there would be cooperation. Because it is not just about giving speeches and being loud on an issue, it is about being counted. And what happened when that was bill came to the floor of this place? What happened with those arrangements when the time came not just to be loud about it but to do something about it? Those opposite went missing. The member for Warrandyte got rolled in his shadow cabinet and his party room, and they left of the work of cleaning this up to this government, and we did it.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): The Premier’s government has been mired in a number of corruption scandals: the red shirts rorts, chauffeured dogs in ministerial cars, bags of cash exchanged in chicken shop car parks, second residence allowance rorts by former Speakers and Deputy Speakers, and tainted donations for backing dodgy planning amendments. Now Victorians find out the Labor Party’s fundraising arm is in charge of ensuring integrity between government ministers and crooked developers. Is this why the Premier has refused to increase the funding sought by the anti-corruption watchdog—because he has just got too much to hide?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:38): Are you really doing that badly, behind you, that you have got to carry on like that? Did you look up at the camera while you did it? This is an embarrassment. You are barely worthy to sit in that chair, let alone this one, and that is the answer you will get. That is the answer you will get, because it is the answer you deserve. You are an embarrassment to the office you hold.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! I just ask members to tone it down.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, I appreciate the Premier does not like the question; however, he is clearly attacking the opposition. That is all he has done in the time he has had so far. That is not in accordance with how question time is meant to occur, and I would therefore ask you to ask him to answer the question instead of seeking to attack the opposition because he is clearly under pressure.

Ms Allan: On the point of order, Speaker, I renew my earlier point of order that both the substantive and supplementary questions from the Leader of the Opposition have been so far removed from government business that it has given scope for the Premier to be relevant in answering that question in canvassing the issues he is raising in his response. Secondly, both the substantive and the supplementary questions, if there was a question indeed in the performance we have just seen from the Leader of the Opposition in his supplementary question, canvassed wild allegations. If you want to refer to mudslinging, the mudslinging that was contained in the supplementary question that we have just seen from the Leader of the Opposition should have led to that question being ruled out of order. Given it was not, the Premier is entirely allowed to respond in the way he is responding, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is responding more to his own pressures from those around him than the substantive issue he claims to care so much about.

Mr Walsh: On the point of order, Speaker, the manager of government business—the Leader of the House, the member for Bendigo East—is clearly wrong in the assertion she puts forward in her point of order. The issues that the Leader of the Opposition has raised are all matters of fact. There was a Deputy Speaker and there was a Speaker that resigned because of rorting the second residence allowance. They are matters of fact. I would ask you to bring the Premier back to answering that question rather than just ranting and raving all the time. Corruption is a serious issue that should be dealt with seriously.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard the point of order. There was in that question a long question about funding to IBAC, so the matter relates to government business. But it was a long question countenancing many issues, and the Premier is therefore able to respond to those issues in a broad referenced way.

Mr ANDREWS: Thank you so much, Speaker. The budget will be delivered on 24 November and IBAC will receive more funding than it has ever received before. That is the way it works. If that is a point of contention, well, people are free to have a different view. The government will make announcements on budget day about funding to integrity agencies and I boldly predict that they will receive a funding increase on what they received last year, and I would be surprised if that did not mean they receive more in this coming year than they have ever received beforehand.

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: Well, some are simply happy to get to the end of a sitting week, aren’t they? That is all they are happy with, having not got necked by their colleagues. Others of us are focused on the Victorian community and doing the job we were sent here to do.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I will be glad to get to the end of a sitting week.

Ministers statements: budget

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:43): Some people are even more pleased about having gathering limits so that you cannot have a full party room, for instance—very, very pleased. On the issue of what we were sent here to do though, not to throw mud and to shout and scream like some others seem obsessed with, I want to foreshadow the budget on 24 November. It will be a budget that responds to a year like no other. This pandemic has been for just about every living Victorian in living memory and in the experience of every single Victorian the most—

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

Mr ANDREWS: All class, this one. No wonder you are in the trouble you are in. But regardless of those that are fundamentally irrelevant, as determined by the Victorian community, the government instead will on 24 November deliver a budget that looks after every single Victorian, whether they be at school, at work, at home; whether they are in need of health care; whether they are in need of training and skills; whether they are in need of employment. Confidence demands a strong economy, a growing economy. This year has been a year like no other, and Victorians have done a mighty job in coming through the very significant challenges that we have all faced. Despite the politicking of some, despite the incoherent one minute ‘Shut it down’, one minute ‘Open it up’, instead of listening to those loudest voices, those least informed voices, Victorians have stayed the course, and this budget will not only repair the damage and heal the wounds, it will also set us up to be stronger than we have ever been. That is not something others could boast. Their position is so weak that they have to carry on like this. This will be a budget that delivers for every Victorian.

Mr Rowswell: On a point of order, Speaker, I wish to bring a number of questions on notice to your attention that have not been responded to by ministers: 2303, 3614, 3592, 4562, 4564, 4565, 4573, 4574, 4575, 4576, 4577, 4578 and 4579. And, Speaker, with your indulgence, I issue an early warning to the Minister for Health, the Minister for Small Business and the Attorney-General with questions due tomorrow: 4600, 4601 and 4602.

The SPEAKER: I will just take those last ones as a kind reminder. Thank you very much. I will follow those matters up.

Constituency questions

Ovens Valley electorate

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (14:46): (4773) My question is on behalf of John Lazzarotto of Cobram East. Some three and a half months ago I wrote to the Minister for Public Transport requesting an onsite inspection of the Murray Valley Highway at Cobram East. John Lazzarotto lives at 2137 Murray Valley Highway. John and his family have a major difficulty in sleeping when empty semitrailers and B-doubles travel past their home all night. There is a small part of the highway that is lifting and is in terrible need of repair. The most frustrating thing is that the area of the road is not kilometres of road, it is only about 20 square kilometres. I wrote to the minister’s office on 27 July and was told it would be addressed. I also have some constituents telling John Lazzarotto that people who know the road actually veer onto the other side of the road so as they do not make all of the noise that keeps him awake at night, so I think it is really important that the minister can get that communication going with Mr Lazzarotto.

The SPEAKER: Just before we move on, I take it that was to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety?

Mr McCURDY: Correct.

Frankston electorate

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (14:47): (4774) My constituency question is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services regarding up to 100 birds killed or injured after they were set alight in a petrol attack in Langwarrin. Whilst we wait for the outcome of this investigation, I ask on behalf of my community: what is being done to ensure this horrible act of bastardry is not repeated? Our community were outraged to hear that a man and a woman boarded a dinghy, approached the birds, which were nesting on two islands, and basically covered them in petrol with their chicks and their eggs and set them alight. Some birds are recovering under the care of Animalia Wildlife Shelter in Frankston. I thank these wonderful people for their hard work as well as the Langwarrin CFA, who responded. My community look forward to the minister’s response.

Polwarth electorate

Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (14:48): (4775) My question this afternoon is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. My question to the minister is quite simple: will Regional Roads Victoria be given extra resources and financing this year in order to get on top of the necessary roadside clearing, maintenance and mowing which has followed the extensive wet season, rainy season and good season that we have had in western Victoria? The minister’s department’s continual rollout, particularly of rope barriers and unnecessary Armco railing, along many of our roadways and highways and byways now renders vast kilometres of roadside not suitable for mowing and maintenance, which of course in the next few weeks will increasingly become a significant fire hazard that will put lives, farms, families and communities at grave risk. This is an important service that needs to be done. The community expect it. I look forward to the minister’s response.

Buninyong electorate

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (14:49): (4776) My constituency question is to the Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety, a very popular minister today. I ask the minister: can you give an update on the progress of the upgrade of the Hertford Street and Albert Street intersection in Sebastopol? This intersection connects two major highways that meet in the heart of Sebastopol’s commercial centre. Phoenix P–12 Community College, shops, restaurants and aged-care facilities all share this intersection. It connects a growing community which includes the booming suburb of Delacombe. Two thousand nine hundred vehicles use this intersection each hour during peak times, and this is expected to increase by 50 per cent by 2041. With the current treatment it is dangerous, with 16 crashes in this area between 2014 and 2019. When speaking to my local community, this intersection was the number one issue locally that they wanted improved. The project will replace Ballarat’s first-ever roundabout with traffic lights and install dedicated turn lanes. This will create a safer intersection.

Evelyn electorate

Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (14:50): (4777) My constituency question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and is about infrastructure works on the Lilydale rail line and in the Lilydale railway station precinct. Lilydale residents want to know why the Labor government is refusing to increase car parking at Lilydale train station as part of this project. Does Labor believe that there are sufficient car parks to meet the current and future demand, or will you concede more car parking is desperately needed at Lilydale train station? Will traffic lights replace the level crossing on Maroondah Highway, Lilydale, and if so, how will traffic congestion improve if you are simply replacing a level crossing with traffic lights? And why is Labor refusing to duplicate the tracks between Mooroolbark and Lilydale and fix the Hull Road rail bridge as part of these works? So far Labor has overlooked these crucial needs. Will the minister now take these infrastructure needs seriously and commit funding in the upcoming state budget for more car parking at Lilydale train station and commit to funding the duplication of the rail line between Mooroolbark and Lilydale?

Northcote electorate

Ms THEOPHANOUS (Northcote) (14:51): (4778) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and I ask: what is being done to ensure initiatives to address climate change are a central part of the upcoming state Labor budget? Minister, as you know, we have a unique opportunity in this budget to not only boost our economy but to also fulfil vital environmental objectives. You and I have had many conversations about the reform and investment needed to take bold action to reduce emissions. We have spoken about Labor’s unmatched record on climate—everything from home solar to ending native forest logging to overhauling recycling to our more recent announcements on renewables and building the biggest battery in the Southern Hemisphere. These are gains built on hard work, vision and policy grunt by Labor governments, and as much as the Greens will try to take credit for them on budget day, that old trick is not flying. Minister, I know you share my view that the pandemic recovery is a critical time for even more action on climate. That means growing our renewables but also reducing the demand on fossil fuels, and I have spoken to you about giving households more choices to go electric. My community are passionate about climate action, but we are not cynical because we can see the tangible gains being made under Labor.

Prahran electorate

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (14:52): (4779) My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the question I ask is: will the minister fund home energy upgrades for homes in the Prahran electorate in the upcoming state budget? Too many homes in the Prahran electorate, particularly rented homes, just are not up to scratch. Renters have told me about poor insulation, astronomical heating bills and homes that are draughty and freezing in winter, so let us put energy efficiency back on the table—energy efficiency for homes and grants for home owners and landlords to improve energy efficiency by draught-proofing their houses, double-glazing windows, installing insulation, replacing old gas heaters and helping more renters get solar. I note Solar Homes is falling well short of its original target for solar for rentals. It is something that the UK government is on board with; it has put billions of pounds into energy efficiency. The ACT government is helping households get off gas. Home energy upgrades will make homes more livable, more sustainable, more affordable and will cut emissions, cut bills and create jobs.

Box Hill electorate

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (14:53): (4780) My constituency question is for the Minister for Early Childhood. As a parent of a kinder-age child I know how important early childhood education is in providing our littlest Victorians with the start they need to succeed through their school years. Australian research shows that one in five Victorian children starts school developmentally vulnerable and once behind they tend to stay behind. The government school readiness funding that has recently been announced will allow Victorian kindergarten providers to tap into the expertise of specialists to reduce the impact of educational disadvantage on children’s learning and development and improve outcomes in communication, wellbeing and access and participation. My question is: what is the total dollar amount of funding that has been provided to the early childhood services in the Box Hill electorate through the school readiness funding rollout?

St Albans electorate

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (14:54): (4781) My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. My question is: will the minister write to the EPA seeking support to establish a community advisory group and bring forward the works immediately for the Kealba landfill site to see this issue finally resolved? For more than a year the residents of Kealba have had to put up with odour omitted from multiple hotspots at the Barro Kealba landfill. I have worked tirelessly with the community and local residents to resolve this matter as quickly as possible, whether it has been providing updates to residents via mail or advocating for the urgency of the matter to the EPA. However, the locals, including me, having endured awful odour for so long, now hear the operator plans to suspend the works for weeks during Christmas and even into New Year. Therefore I believe the locals deserve a better resolution. We urge that the matter be resolved immediately.

Following question incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 10 November:

Hastings electorate

Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (4782)

My question is directed to the Minister for the Coordination of Jobs, Precincts and Regions: COVID-19 and the information I seek on behalf of my constituents is regarding information about state government support for the Mornington Peninsula shire’s $320 million worth of shovel-ready projects.

The shire has listed a $320 million package of shovel-ready projects that are set to go.

The shire has listed nine projects on the peninsula that would create jobs, improve community facilities and services and facilitate road safety upgrades for the benefit of my community and the peninsula.

These $320 million project consists of:

$15 m for the Peninsula Bay Trail

$17.825 m for peninsula community facilities

$10.6 m for the Briars

$18.5 m for peninsula pavilions

$130 m for road safety

$27.3 m for recycled water

$2.5 m for peninsula homelessness package

$10 m for better buses

a Mornington Peninsula technology park.

The shire has announced these projects to help soften the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the peninsula.

The shire has stated that the negative economic impacts of COVID-19 are forecast to be greater for the Mornington Peninsula than for Australia overall, with a predicted 21 per cent fall in gross regional product, much worse than the 6.9 per cent drop forecast for Australia as a whole.

The shire has also stated that an estimated 5900 jobs are forecast to be lost due to the pandemic, with a reduction in employment opportunities of 11 per cent.

I urgently seek the Minister’s support for these important shovel-ready projects in this month’s state budget. The Morrison government has already offered $80 m towards three of the nine projects.

Bills

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (14:55): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. This bill highlights the Andrews government’s commitment to strengthening Victorian communities through delivering on its Big Build program, the implementation of its ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy, the important measures to increase efficiency and the important measures to increase road safety regulation across our community.

There has been much discussion in the house today about what the Big Build is. The government’s Big Build program of works is continuing across metropolitan and regional Victoria. The works deliver much-needed transport solutions, but they also create jobs and they assist in our economic recovery. A key element of the Big Build program is the $2 billion Regional Rail Revival program, which is upgrading every regional passenger rail line in Victoria and creating more than 1000 jobs. These upgrades will enable more services and faster services, and these upgrades will undoubtedly benefit our regional communities and are a key part of this bill that is before us today. But the Big Build is far more than this. In my electorate in particular, people have been very interested and very excited by the Level Crossing Removal Project. As a number of members of this house have spoken to today, the Level Crossing Removal Project is being rolled out across metropolitan Melbourne and is benefiting so many of our communities.

In the electorate that I represent, in Pascoe Vale, we are removing five dangerous and congested level crossings. As members of this house know, the government’s Big Build program is delivering $70 billion in infrastructure projects across Victoria, which employ 15 000 of our fellow Victorians. They make it easier, they make it quicker and faster and they make it safer for people to move around our great city. The communities within my electorate have benefited significantly from the Big Build program, specifically the level crossings—75 dangerous and congested level crossings across our state and, as I said, five in my electorate. Last Monday I was very pleased to have the Minister for Transport Infrastructure come to Coburg and open, two weeks early, the Upfield rail line.

Mr Wynne: Yes, fantastic! Wow!

Ms BLANDTHORN: It was very, very, very good, Minister.

Mr Wynne: You get nice views of the city from Coburg.

Ms BLANDTHORN: It was a beautiful view of the city. It was very sunny up there on the new elevated rail, but it was a beautiful view right across Melbourne—2.5 kilometres is the elevated section of the Upfield line. It has also been opened two weeks early, so well ahead of schedule. The cranes, Kath and Kim, have been hard at work while constituents across Victoria and across Coburg have been diligently and thankfully following the restrictions. While they have been in their homes, following the restrictions of the last few weeks and months, Kath and Kim have been hard at work building the elevated structure. Kath and Kim are the names that have been given to the cranes that are putting in place the structure itself.

Mr Edbrooke interjected.

Ms BLANDTHORN: It is different, member for Frankston. It is. So to be able to join the minister, to be able to climb the gantry and to be able to look at the view from the top of the completed elevated structure was certainly very exciting. We have removed four congested level crossings in this stretch of 2.5 kilometres from Bell Street to Moreland Road, including Reynard Street and Munro Street in between. This will make a huge difference to the communities of Coburg and the communities between Moreland and Bell streets. It will mean that we will have nearly two MCGs worth of open space underneath these rail bridges as well, and we are very much looking forward to finalising and revealing the designs, which will include new parks and playground equipment, gym equipment and ball sports facilities as well as a dog park and other, I guess, active recreation spaces along the Upfield corridor.

It is a wonderful urban outcome, Minister, and to add to that, something which I know is very important to your constituents is the improvement in the bike paths along that stretch as well. The Upfield bike path will be a separated pedestrian and bike path—this is something that was extremely important to the community—and it will go the full length. It will fill in the gaps, particularly along Railway Place, where it was particularly dangerous for both pedestrians and cyclists alike and of course for many residents that live along Railway Place. This was an exciting visit. It was great to have the minister out two weeks early.

It was also very good to be able to talk to her about the removal of the Glenroy Road level crossing. This is perhaps the most important of the level crossing removals happening in my community. The Upfield level crossings service a broad community, and they are obviously along a 2.5-kilometre stretch, but when I am out and about talking to residents in my local community it is undoubtedly the Glenroy Road level crossing which is considered the most dangerous, and it is the Glenroy Road level crossing which is considered the most congested and which really disrupts people’s daily lives when they are trying to get from one side of Glenroy to the other. When you are picking up children from Glenroy West Primary School and then going across to Glenroy College, you get stuck at that crossing. I myself have been stuck there on many occasions, so I truly empathise with those people. You can sit on Glenroy Road for 45 minutes trying to get across the Glenroy level crossing. It is dangerous, it is congested and it has for a long time been considered one of the worst in Melbourne.

Just a few weeks ago were released the final designs for the Glenroy station. It was an exciting moment for the Glenroy community. When I posted the new designs on my Facebook page the level of engagement with the community was unprecedented. They were very excited to see the new designs. I think a few people described it as Toorak coming to Glenroy. It is a beautiful new station design that will also facilitate the removal of the Glenroy Road level crossing. This is what the Big Build is in our community, and it is very exciting and is something that is really energising our local community.

It is important that as Victoria begins to recover from the impact of this unprecedented global pandemic the Andrews government is more committed than ever to investing in infrastructure across the state that creates the jobs that support our communities, and the provisions that are outlined in this legislation before us will allow us to further progress the Big Build through the $2 billion Regional Rail Revival program, which will both deliver a much-needed revitalisation of rail networks and boost regional economic activity.

Victoria has a limited number of private level crossings that were created under the Lands Compensation Act 1869, and these crossings on private land originate from the period when the rail corridor was indeed first created. In order to ensure the safety of rail line upgrades this bill enables the Secretary of the Department of Transport to nominate a private level crossing to be closed. Compensation for the loss of access to the land will be provided to affected landowners in accordance with the processes under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, and the state will be able to acquire surplus land, which will be included in the compensation process. Alternative access may also be provided if it is feasible to do so.

The bill will also clarify government responsibility for public infrastructure delivered as part of the Big Build. Victoria is building more infrastructure than ever before, and new bodies such as the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority are delivering the Big Build across multiple modes of transport.

As time is getting away from me, I would just like to also make a few remarks in relation to ‘safer speeds, safer sites’. Inevitably the unprecedented program of infrastructure works that we currently have in place across Victoria can at times disrupt the transport network, and indeed as we have removed the four level crossings along the Upfield line at the same time as we are working on projects such as the removal of the roundabout and the installation of traffic lights at the intersection of Gaffney and Sussex streets in Coburg North and Pascoe Vale my community certainly understands what this is like. Our ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy requires the lifting of speed limits around construction areas when construction work finishes for the day, and this bill delivers on the policy commitment to introduce a corporate penalty of up to 300 penalty units or approximately $50 000 for traffic management breaches, including not returning roads to a safe speed when construction work finishes for the day. It is particularly important when we are doing so much work that our community have the trust that at the appropriate times they can move freely around those works.

This bill also makes some important provisions that go to improving road safety measures, and this is a particularly important issue in my community, from the school and the cafes that are on Bakers Road in Coburg to the students at Mercy College on Sydney Road and the students and their very diligent and caring staff at the Coburg Primary School who use the Sydney Road–Bell Street intersection. I note the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is now also at the table. These are important issues for my community, and I know that they are particularly grateful for the provisions that will ensure greater safety through this bill and through the various measures that our government is introducing to improve road safety around my community and indeed right across metropolitan Melbourne. I am very pleased to commend this bill.

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (15:05): Before I begin my contribution on this bill, because I did not get up yesterday, I just want to acknowledge a very important day yesterday, Remembrance Day. I take the opportunity to pay my respects, as we always do on that day, to those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can live in a free, democratic society.

I am very pleased to speak on this bill and to do so with the minister at the table, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, who is not only an excellent minister who is judicious in everything he does but a good friend and a really decent, hardworking colleague. I know the minister is not in here just for my contribution, but it is pleasing that he is in here during debate on a very important bill.

While yesterday was an important day, today is also an important day but for another reason, and that is it is a baker’s dozen day of double doughnuts in Victoria, with both zero new cases and zero deaths. When we are talking about doughnuts and transport infrastructure, I must admit that those on the other side are experts—double doughnuts in transport infrastructure for four years. They did nothing on major transport infrastructure. They are an opposition that has had virtually no experience with transport infrastructure. They come to this Parliament on these issues of transport—in fact on issues of COVID and doughnuts too—with nothing but criticism. I will give you an example. In my community alone in the Level Crossing Removal Project—

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the infrastructure delivery of the previous Liberal government and indeed the opposition’s policies on transport infrastructure have nothing at all to do with this bill, and I would ask you to draw the member back to the bill that is before the house.

Mr Carroll: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, transport infrastructure is actually very much a part of the bill, and the member has an opportunity to put the context to that. Indeed a lot of the substance and the provisions of the bill are to make it easier and more fluent and cost-effective to get on with the job of building more transport infrastructure. I seek a rejection of the point of order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): It has been a wideranging debate so far, so I do believe the member is in order.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: We will look past the four years of doughnuts of those opposite when it comes to transport infrastructure—four years straight of doughnuts—and get onto the substantive element of this bill, and that is, exactly as the minister said clearly, that this is a bill that facilitates more of and in a bigger way what we have already proven in this government is what we are here for, which is to make the lives of Victorians better, to make it easier to increase productivity and to increase the time spent with loved ones by not being stuck on the arterial roads of Melbourne, not being stuck on clogged public transport or highways and a range of other facilities and infrastructure that people need to use to get home.

But there is a valid point to be made, in my view, on the contest of ideas in this place and the criticism that does come from some quarters, specifically from those opposite. In my community when we talk about transport infrastructure, we have had an enormous amount. We have had four level crossings removed in the Dandenong-Cranbourne corridor, four of them in my patch, in my community. Do you know what? Frankly, when I heard from my office the member for Caulfield come in here yesterday, or the day before perhaps, and basically complain in I think it may have been a constituency question to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure—

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this debate can be as wide as you might like it to be, but it has got nothing to do with the member for Caulfield at all. I would ask you to draw the member for Oakleigh back to talking about the bill that is before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): Thank you, member for Kew. I do not see any point of order. The member for Oakleigh can continue.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: The community expects governments to do the heavy lifting on transport infrastructure, but they also expect that the information they are given by opposing parties is truthful and factual. My point was that the information provided by the member for Caulfield in this chamber was not. He was saying that he had lobbied hard and he had done all this work to remove the Glen Huntly level crossing. The only political party in Victoria that has committed from day one to removing the Glen Huntly level crossing is the Labor Party and the Andrews government. And we committed to expediting that project—not removing it in 2025 but removing the boom gates on Glen Huntly Road by 2023. And for the member for Caulfield to come in here the other day and say to the minister, ‘Oh, my God, it is so late!’—well, it is so late for a party, as I said, that was an expert in doughnuts in transport infrastructure for four years.

Mr T Smith: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, could you please direct the member for Oakleigh back to discussing the bill that is before the house. It has nothing to do with doughnuts. It has nothing to do with the member for Caulfield. It is a government bill. I would ask you to draw the member for Oakleigh back to talking about the bill that is before the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): There has been a wide range of issues, but I just remind members to stick to the amendment bill before the house.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: Thank you, Acting Speaker, for providing me the space to tell the truth.

In terms of the level crossings removed in my community, I know people expect the local MP of the governing party to back a government project, but my goodness, they have been extraordinary in their value, not just their value in terms of time saved by people driving down Murrumbeena Road specifically but also Koornang Road, Poath Road and Grange Road—all four—who save literally 20 to 30 minutes in the morning and 20 to 30 minutes in the evening peak. There were families I met in 2014 when I was doorknocking in Murrumbeena who literally decided which school they would send their child to subject to which side of the level crossing they lived on. So there would be a school which would be in walking distance, but they could not get across to it because there was a rail corridor. Now they can get across to it. Murrumbeena Primary School is a key example. There were parents and families who lived on the other side of the railway line. Now there is no other side. You can cross at any point because we created the sky rail solution, which means people commute underneath. There are businesses and an entire precinct that has developed there, and there is some government land that we are looking at using for community purposes. It has been such a successful project in my community.

Then you look at the Suburban Rail Loop, one of the most visionary, forward-looking projects. I am very fortunate and my community is very fortunate to have one, as is the member for Mount Waverley, who is here next to me. Our communities are going to benefit from two of the stations that are planned to go in there. But it is not just the station; it is the vision of a precinct around that station. It is the vision of an activity hub, a community hub, and what makes this even more compelling for me is that it will be close to Monash University—this is what the early plans indicate. If you think about it for a moment, it is not just the biggest university in Australia but also the home of the Andrews Labor government’s Victorian Heart Hospital, the first and only heart hospital in the country and one of the biggest in the world. The vice-chancellor of Monash University told me that her university’s medical school is in the top 50 medical schools in terms of size of any university in the world, so you can imagine the narrative and the enormous collaboration between that medical school and the heart hospital. Then you have got the synchrotron. Another good Labor government, the Brumby Labor government, brought the synchrotron not only to Australia but to Victoria. This is what you can unlock in terms of value when you look at precinct planning around major transport hubs. It is not just the transport connections; it is actually the precinct that comes around it.

I am looking forward to all that work being undertaken not just by the excellent minister at the table, the Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety, but by this government, this proud government that does major projects in a way that creates jobs, that creates precincts and that creates value for the community through what are, as the Premier says, oak tree projects in a sense. We will not be here—we will be long gone—when they are enjoyed by generations to come.

That is the value we provide, and the value they provide on the other side is doughnuts when it comes to major transport infrastructure—doughnuts. And they will pay. They paid the price in November for that, and they will continue to pay the price of that ramping up of community anxiety around major projects just to say no—just to have something to say. Why don’t you take a reasonable approach and pick out genuine concerns rather than just ramping up fear in the community like you did with sky rail with that awful character in the other place who came to my community and raised anxiety? Do you know what? They did not listen to him. They did not listen to Mr Davis. They listened to the Premier and to me and we got the projects done, and now the whole community is benefiting. I wish this bill a speedy passage.

Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (15:15): As a frequent user of public transport it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020, which ensures the government’s unprecedented investment in transport infrastructure is not only put to good use but increases the efficiency and effectiveness of safety regulation. I am absolutely delighted to be speaking on this, because many of you would know that I have never learned to drive a car and that I have lived my entire life on public transport—and indeed I moved to Hawthorn because of the 75 tram and the Hawthorn railway station. Long, long, long before that I actually grew up in Sydney, and one of the things that struck me when I came down here all those years ago was that wonderful third line that you find, certainly on the Belgrave, Lilydale and Hawthorn lines, which means you can have this fantastic express service in the morning and in the evening. I had never seen anything quite like that, and I am hoping that we will eventually see other lines put in as well. I have a huge amount of time for the transport arrangements here, which I am sure go back to Labor member for Hawthorn Charlie Murphy in the 1950s and possibly others as well in the Hawthorn electorate who would have been responsible for original design arrangements.

But I am just delighted that the government has stuck to public transport through thick and thin. It would have been very easy during COVID to cut down the number of trains coming in—we average at about every 3 or 4 minutes at 8 o’clock in the morning—but it did not. It maintained the timetable there right through, and I was just delighted with that. I was particularly delighted to be often the only person in the carriage, which was a rare treat but nonetheless one there.

I think that the transport system that we have here is most impressive, and I am not at all surprised. I like the way, for example, when trains are cancelled in favour of buses because of repairs and so on, how efficiently that system works. At Hawthorn there is a special bus stop where you get on—et cetera et cetera. So I speak with lots of experience. I am fully aware that the member for Box Hill over here is a frequent train user, as is the member for Yan Yean. There are a lot of people around who are sort of closet train users who have come forward to me since I have been in this place saying, ‘I actually catch the train’—and I am most impressed. I am delighted to be speaking on this particular bill, and I will always look for any opportunity to speak on any bill that enhances an already good public transport system here in Melbourne—but one which could always be improved, without a doubt.

So the changes set out below will be achieved through miscellaneous amendments to various transport acts. They are necessary to assist in the delivery of the government’s Big Build agenda across metropolitan and regional Victoria and not only provide essential transport infrastructure but, critically, will create jobs and assist in Victoria’s recovery from COVID. The bill aims to implement Big Build projects and election commitments, ensuring local infrastructure built by the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority can be transferred to councils according with the division of responsibilities between state and local road authorities; introducing powers to close occupational rail crossings with compensation for financial loss in accordance with procedures outlined in the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986; delivering the government’s ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy statement by introducing corporate penalties of up to $50 000 for breaches of traffic regulations; and eliminating uncertainty as to whether VicTrack is able to enter long-term leases over Crown land in its management for rail infrastructure-related purposes.

The Andrews Labor government in delivering our Big Build agenda is simultaneously delivering big benefits for many thousands of Victorians. For example, the Big Build vision sees some $70 billion being invested in more than 100 road and rail projects across Victoria. How good is that? Doing so delivers 18 000 real jobs for people throughout the state. In improving transport infrastructure, eliminating lost time otherwise spent in traffic gridlock or in waiting for public transport, these are projects which will play a part in recovering from the economic fallout of COVID.

The bill will improve road safety as well. I am not an expert on road safety. I will acknowledge that. I am not into cars in a big way. That is why the Greens are so pleased to have me here in the chamber. But I certainly want to see an enhancement of safety, without a doubt. The bill does this, as will be seen, by tightening the rules for alcohol intake for an increasingly important category of non-private car users. In doing so the bill reflects the government’s real commitment to the improvement of road safety regulation. Currently large vehicles are defined as a bus or a vehicle or vehicle combination over 15 tonnes. Drivers of such large vehicles are currently required to have a zero blood or breath alcohol concentration. Taxis and rideshare drivers must also have a zero blood alcohol concentration while they are working. The current position is that drivers of 12-tonne rigid and flat-backed trucks—I have learned a lot preparing for this, as you can see—are not subject to the zero blood alcohol concentration. This position will change so that all drivers of heavy vehicles—vehicles and combinations over 4.5 tonnes—will hereafter be subject to the total alcohol ban. It is very important to note that this zero alcohol position will not apply to everyday working vehicles such as tradespeople’s utes or a citizen using their standard licence to hire a van to move their furniture, so there is a sensible application then of what is I think a very worthwhile bill.

An important and emerging area, which today has been adequately regulated, is around motorised personal mobility vehicles. These small vehicles, often but not always battery powered, will now be appropriately regulated, particularly to ensure that drink-driving and drug-driving restrictions also apply to these vehicles if their use is permitted by the government under the road rules.

The bill ensures road safety by increasing penalties in several high-risk areas. Regrettably increasing instances of drink- or drug-affected drivers supervising a learner driver on Victorian roads will now see penalties being increased fourfold for such offending. The seriousness of such conduct is felt to warrant a significant deterrent being introduced. The government is mindful that the learner drivers caught up in such irresponsible behaviour, for which they are not responsible, are being placed at significant risk.

It is regrettable too that the bill must now significantly increase the penalty where alcohol interlock conditions have been breached. Such irresponsible conduct has been subject to a penalty which is thought to be low in relation to the risks for innocent road users that such behaviour represents. The maximum penalty for such a breach—that is, disregarding the interlock conditions or driving unlicensed when the driver is subject to an interlock restriction—will also be subject to a fourfold increase or for a person convicted for this offence to face imprisonment of two years. The government is determined to make our roads safer. I guess that is why we generally have support for so many of these aspects of the bill.

I would just like to move towards a conclusion and say that a further reform to abandoned vehicles will be to permit Victoria Police to use and possibly destroy the suitable abandoned vehicles for the purpose of police training. It is not intended that vehicles other than of those negligible sale value will be destroyed in such training activities. I conclude by saying once again that I think the bill delivers on the Big Build program. If you like, it is the fine detail. That is what we are dealing with now. We have had the big headline, and people were keen on this—elections tell us that—back in November 2018. But it is one thing to have the big headline, it is another thing to attend to the details to make sure you do not get defeated by the detail. This bill is doing valuable work in that respect. I commend the bill.

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (15:25): Wowee! I tell you what, it is always a great pleasure to be in this chamber when the member for Hawthorn makes a contribution on a bill. He has a very clear and articulate passion for public transport and for this Andrews government, now in its second term and delivering not just our broad progressive agenda for Victorians but of course, as the member for Hawthorn and as other members in this place have contributed on—contributed quite well on—and articulated, our Big Build projects agenda. It is significant and it is delivering for all Victorians. It has done so now in our sixth year, moving into our seventh, and in our second term, not just across Victoria but locally, and locally in my patch as well.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Public Transport and also the other minister, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, who is not currently in this place. I do not think there will be too many ministers after they have left this place—with many, many years left I hope—that will have delivered more than these two ministers in this Andrews government. We talk about delivering for all Victorians. I cannot even imagine the amount of money and projects these ministers are responsible for, but at the end of it we will have people getting across the city quicker, people moving around their neighbourhoods, interconnectivity and productivity that we have never seen before in the likes of this state of Victoria. So a massive thankyou to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport and to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure for their contribution to date and no doubt the contribution they will make in leading their departments, leading their offices and helping to lead this state in continuing to deliver our Big Build project.

Of course it is a great pleasure to talk on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 and to talk about the slightly technical nature of some parts of this bill, but it is also an opportunity to talk about what is this government’s significant agenda when it comes to building our state for the future and today as well. We know locally that we talk about removing those pesky, those dangerous, those congested level crossings—75. We are over 40 now. Hands up if you have had a level crossing removed in your community. I tell you what, they are going the way of dinosaurs. They are going the way of the pterodactyl. They are looking a bit shabby at the moment, and I reckon there will be a lot more to go from this date forward. We have got 75 on the books and we have still got a few to go.

We had two that went in my local community, Scoresby Road and Mountain Highway. Those were absolute nightmares that added minutes onto your commute. They were a shocker. Typically they were not overly useful for place making either. They have been gone now since 2016. There is a brand new station—$234 million. The people of Bayswater could not be happier. We have got a brand new station. We have completely changed the place. Just talking to constituents—whether it is on the doors, whether it is on the phones—they are so proud of this Andrews Labor government.

I must say as well, back in 2018 I was plucked from obscurity. I was the local councillor for Collier ward watching from a distance the Big Build project, and to be here in this place talking about what we are delivering for all Victorians and for locals, I tell you what, is second to nothing. Maybe my—actually, no. I am just going to stick with that: second to nothing. It sounded like that had a bit of positivity in this place. But it is not just what we delivered before I came to this place and what this government has kicked on with right across this great state. Heathmont railway station—the good Minister for Public Transport is here as well—with $1.7 million we are going to completely overhaul that joint. It is going to be safer, it is going to be more accessible. We are going to have more CCTV and better lighting. It is going to have new seating and new fencing. We are updating the platform canopies. It is going to be an absolute ripper, and I cannot wait to see that start. I know, Minister, we have got some plans on the way, and I know because I am very, very keen to see those plans. It is going to be an exciting upgrade for locals.

We have also got not just Heathmont station, but—the minister again; you are getting a big feature here today, Minister for Roads and Road Safety in this instance—Canterbury–Bedford intersection, another pesky intersection which has been a bugbear for locals for many, many years is now done. It is completed. No more nose-to-tails as people are turning right off Canterbury Road onto Bedford Road. That is gone. We have extended that bad boy out by another couple of hundred metres. Coming off Bedford Road onto Canterbury, we have made that slip lane a lot safer, so a much better result for locals.

We have got the shared pathway, the Burwood Highway, making it easier for people to get from Knox to Whitehorse, Whitehorse to Knox. For a long, long time people had to try and traverse the dodgy old, rickety boardwalk through Knox City Council’s land, through Wantirna Reserve. No more will they have to do that. They will be able to traverse it quite easily, across a brand new, shiny shared pathway across Burwood Highway. So it is not just across Victoria, it is locally. We are delivering for all Victorians.

This bill continues to talk the talk to our successful Big Build project agenda. It is not going to stop now. We are going to keep on kicking on, delivering for all Victorians and importantly creating good local jobs—10 000 on North East Link as well, with 11 minutes time saving across to the city, 35 across to the airport. It is all happening.

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (15:30): It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, though I am not sure that I can quite match the previous contribution. It is very exciting to stand and talk about Victoria’s Big Build. There has been an unprecedented $70 billion of infrastructure planned, and that has created more than 18 000 jobs. I notice in contributions from the other side earlier that they seem to be fixated on this dollar figure. Well, those of us on this side of the house are thinking about jobs, and this infrastructure build really has given jobs to many, many Victorians, which is fantastic.

I would also note that I was listening to the contribution by the member for Polwarth. It is interesting because the member for Polwarth and I share a border. His contribution seemed to be that the Big Build in some way was unfair to farmers and that the money was not getting to regional people. So I thought I would take this time to point out a few programs that the member for Polwarth would like to know about which have been quite extraordinary for our farmers. I know that in March of this year I was really happy to visit Lethbridge. It is incredibly close to the member for Polwarth’s border line. Perhaps I would invite him to come and visit because under the roads to market program there were some very, very happy poultry farmers who saw their road, Tall Tree Road, really brought up to scratch. Under the wonderful Minister for Agriculture we have this fantastic program for farmers to get their produce to market.

But of course even under the Minister for Roads and Road Safety there are also programs that are very, very specifically targeted at those of us in regional areas. The fixing country roads package is just a wonderful program. In 2018–19 in my electorate I was really pleased to discover that over $2.5 million was given to the Golden Plains shire. I believe some of the Golden Plains shire might even stretch over to the member for Polwarth’s electorate. It comes very close, so perhaps his farmers there will really benefit from the fixing country roads money that went to the Golden Plains shire. But it did not stop there. There was $2.1 million which was granted to Moorabool shire to fix up those country roads, to get to those bridges that need work. So any suggestion that the Big Build in any way disadvantages our regional communities is just rubbish.

I know from my community how much support we have had from the minister for roads for those farming communities. Ask a Dunnstown farmer how happy they are about the fixing country roads program that has put $1 million into the Dunnstown road. As I say, really any suggestion from the member for Polwarth that the Big Build is in some way disadvantaging farmers is just not right. This government cares about regional communities, this government listens to regional communities. I know I have spoken to the minister for roads on many occasions about how important it is for us. For example, there has been a huge investment in the Midland Highway. That runs from my electorate down to the member for Barwon’s electorate. That is a major thoroughfare for our farmers in taking their product to market.

But of course it is also about families, it is also about communities. There is a particular piece of work going on at the moment which is called the Clarendon project, and I would like the minister to know that I have spoken to quite a few people in the community and they were absolutely delighted with the consultation that went on. So again I notice that the member for Polwarth was in some ways suggesting that there was no consultation, that roads were being closed. I can tell you that my people in my electorate were really happy. There were issues, they went back to VicRoads or Regional Roads Victoria and they discussed it and things were changed. So I do want you to know that Regional Roads in Ballarat did a fantastic job with the Clarendon project, and now we have got a turning lane. It might not sound like very much to many people, but a turning lane to the Scotsburn primary school is incredibly important. These families have been going to that wonderful school for years and having to just sit in the middle of a highway hoping to find a gap to turn right. So I would like the minister for roads to know how incredibly pleased we are with the commitment that he has made to our regional communities. I commend this bill to the house.

Following speeches incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 10 November:

Mr NORTHE (Morwell)

I’m pleased to also make a contribution on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020. This bill makes a host of miscellaneous and technical changes across transport legislation, including:

supporting the government in delivering their Big Build election commitments

increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of transport regulation

makes some miscellaneous and technical amendments.

I will firstly speak to the Big Build element of this bill, including the Regional Rail Revival, where the Gippsland line upgrade is of particular importance to my electorate. Whilst I congratulate the state government on updating aged infrastructure in regional Victoria via these upgrades, we still have no information regarding improvements in travel times when these works are completed. Faster travel times would help attract more people to move to regional Victoria and therefore enhance our recovery from not only COVID-19, but industry decline. We also experience plenty of issues in the metro lines which affect our services through no fault of our own, which is disruptive. It’s disappointing that these upgrades will not help these issues. To spend half a billion dollars on infrastructure upgrades is impressive, but spending that amount of money and not improving travel times is incredibly disappointing from many perspectives.

In addition, as a result of the government’s decisions we have seen many Latrobe Valley community groups losing their place of operation and the Traralgon and District Art Society is one example. They are still to this day in negotiations regarding being kicked out of their home at the Traralgon train station on account of platform works as part of the Gippsland line upgrade. They still don’t know if they will be allowed back in or when. This society is a group of dedicated volunteers and this issue is making it hard to assist them in their decisions to move or rent a space. I would implore the government to not continually leave this worthy organisation in limbo as they are at present, which is grossly unfair.

There are also still unmitigated problems with the proposed Gippsland stabling facility. There are still as I understand four options for a location, and I know the Traralgon East community are very concerned that the site hasn’t been announced despite plenty of time elapsing since the initial announcements. This uncertainty is simply unfair for this community who don’t want the stabling facility in their precinct when there are better options and the government should be communicating with these residents on what their actual plans are, and again much like the arts society, Traralgon East residents are in limbo.

Another associated issue is the McNairn Road, Traralgon railway crossing. This crossing is extremely unsafe having no pedestrian access and there has been massive retail investment and development in this area, including the establishment of major retailers like Bunnings, Aldi, McDonald’s and more. There is an increasing risk at this crossing given the growth of retail in this area, but also the government has stated it intends to operate more train services, which means even more interactions at this crossing between trains and pedestrians. It’s frightening to think that local residents and schoolchildren use this crossing, and even though I have written to the minister responsible about this matter, I through my contribution on this bill request the government take urgent action on this serious safety issue. There needs to be a dedicated pedestrian access way installed at the McNairn Road, Traralgon crossing, as is the case just down the road at the Liddiard Road, Traralgon crossing.

We also still have an issue with parking at the Morwell train station, where a promised 60 new car parks were announced in 2017. More than three years later this hasn’t actualised despite works commencing. It seems that a dispute has halted works, but as usual, no-one from government is advising or communicating with our community the reasons for this dispute and when works will be completed. The Morwell community has been waiting a long time for these additional car spaces and it’s incredibly disappointing for local commuters to be ignored in such a way.

One issue that I have been raising for a long time in this place is that transport costs and fares are higher for those residing in the Latrobe Valley. This is such an issue of clear disparity that earlier this year I commissioned a parliamentary intern report to be undertaken with regard to this topic. I would again like to congratulate Mr Jack Hunt in his delivery of this research—he did a magnificent job during a very difficult semester 1 2020!

His report clearly demonstrated how students and seniors pay more in Latrobe Valley for public transport services than their regional and metropolitan counterparts. They are impacted upon by unfair zoning as well as policy and disparity in fare offers.

For example, Latrobe Valley students are denied access to discounted student passes which are offered to many students west and north of the state but not in Gippsland.

Another example: seniors are limited in their access of free weekend travel or capped price weekday travel. A senior living in Pakenham could travel to the city and back on a weekend and pay nothing, however, a Latrobe Valley senior cannot even ride from Traralgon to Moe train station. What a disgrace!

Also, due to a fare anomaly, it is cheaper to travel from Traralgon to Warragul then Warragul to Southern Cross than it is to travel direct. The way this pricing structure rorts Latrobe Valley residents really defies belief! I have written to the new Minister for Public Transport about these specific issues and I look forward to hearing from him in this regard.

In closing, whilst I do think there are elements of this bill that are common sense, I would think that the government could do more to support my community with regard to transport services, infrastructure, costs and safety. I implore them to explore the matters I have raised as they work through the stages of the Regional Rail Revival project and would be happy to work with them in order to do so.

Mr TAK (Clarinda)

I am very happy to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020.

This is an important bill that will pursue several objectives, the first of which is to enable implementation of Big Build projects and election commitments.

The Big Build is Victoria’s biggest transport program—an unprecedented $70 billion infrastructure program across the state that employs some 15 000 Victorians and improves the way people move around Victoria.

The list of projects is simply amazing. North East Link, the Monash Freeway upgrade, the Metro Tunnel, Suburban Rail Loop, as well as the Cranbourne line upgrade and the Mordialloc Freeway—the list goes on and on.

For those who don’t already know, the Mordialloc Freeway will link the Mornington Peninsula Freeway to the Dingley bypass.

The project will build bridges over Springvale, Governor, Lower Dandenong and Centre Dandenong Roads, including new freeway entry and exit ramps; build bridges over Old Dandenong Road and the sensitive waterways area; connect the freeway to the Dingley bypass with traffic lights; upgrade the existing interchange at Thames Promenade, Chelsea, with the Mornington Peninsula Freeway to provide freeway entry and exit ramps; and build a new shared walking and cycling path along the entire freeway.

Construction commenced in October 2019 and is due to be completed by the end of 2021.

I’d like to say a huge thankyou to all of the team involved in construction—it’s really taking shape.

By way of update, the team continues to make good progress, with piling and works to protect and relocate utilities continuing across the site. Construction of the freeway bridges is now ramping up with the installation of the first bridge beams at Old Dandenong Road and works underway to build the columns that will support the 400-metre twin bridges over the waterways wetlands.

Across the project, the team has already completed all preparation works required for the upcoming road closures to build the bridge at Old Dandenong Road and the interchange at Lower Dandenong Road; completed installing the 63 piles needed to support the twin 400-metre bridges over the waterways wetlands; and completed the foundations for the southern bridge embankment at Springvale Road—which looks fantastic.

There are a number of ways you can stay informed about the Mordialloc Freeway progress and all of Victoria’s major transport projects.

The Big Build website has a lot of great information and features an interactive map showing the location and timing of any major disruptions as well as travel alternatives.

More broadly, across the state we’ve removed 43 dangerous and congested level crossings, reaching over the halfway mark in removing the total 75 crossings by 2025, with another 20 currently underway.

We’ve reached the halfway point on the Metro Tunnel Project with 50 per cent of the tunnelling now completed.

And work has continued on the North East Link, the Monash Freeway upgrade and a range of rail and road projects across the state.

This is a truly momentous effort and again a huge thankyou to everyone involved.

As such I’m delighted to support this bill to support the implementation of Big Build projects and election commitments.

The bill will achieve this objective by:

ensuring local infrastructure built by the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority can be transferred to councils, in accordance with the normal split of responsibilities between state and local road authorities;

introducing powers to close occupational rail crossings, with compensation for financial loss in accordance with the process under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986;

delivering on the government’s ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy statement by introducing corporate penalties of up to $50 000 for breaches of traffic management regulation; and

removing doubt that VicTrack can enter long-term leases over Crown land in its management for rail infrastructure related purposes.

Further to this, the bill increases the efficiency and effectiveness of safety regulation by providing for zero blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC) for drivers of heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes.

Currently zero BAC only applies to vehicles over 15 tonnes, so this is an important change.

Also regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of safety regulation, the bill is focused on:

ensuring that emerging motorised personal mobility technology can be appropriately regulated, if the use is permitted by government;

reducing the costs to the state associated with vehicle impoundment;

enabling staff of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to be appointed to exercise compliance and enforcement powers under Victorian laws; and

improving the operation of accident towing regulation in response to industry concerns and requests.

Finally, there are two miscellaneous amendments, namely to:

enable annual fees for custom numberplates and the reservation of custom plates; and

increase penalties for road safety offences around breaching alcohol interlock conditions and supervisory driving.

Regarding custom plates, the change will reduce private speculation and significant profits in the secondary market. The amendments relate to future plates and do not impact on the ownership of existing custom plates that have been an issue.

So there are a range of amendments included in this bill, and I’m happy to support these amendments.

I’ll just finish by noting that importantly, Big Build projects have saved tens of thousands of jobs during this pandemic.

So now more than ever, as the state recovers from the global pandemic, we’re focused on boosting jobs and keeping the economy moving.

And the changes in this bill allow us to get on with this important work.

So I’m very proud to be part of a government committed to investing in infrastructure that supports our communities and committed to economic recovery.

And I commend the bill to the house.

Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (15:36): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.

Food Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HUTCHINS:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:36): I rise to speak on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. I stand here as the lead speaker and as the responsible shadow minister for health in the lower house. The member for Lowan is on maternity leave, so I just thought I would make mention that she will be returning and so this is my last time representing her as lead speaker. Obviously with my health background I have enjoyed the opportunity.

I just thought I would take a moment to talk about the fact, before I begin if you do not find, that we have some young mums coming into the Parliament in the next couple of weeks: the member for Lowan and the member for Euroa. I just thought I would mention that we have had a lot of challenges in the last few weeks with sitting dates being moved around, and we often do not get notice of sitting dates for the next year until very shortly before we actually start to sit. It is not unusual, although perhaps it has not really happened much before, that we are going to have two members in the house who will have young babies, and hopefully they will be having them come into the house with them so they can really have that experience not taken away from them. I just thought I would mention that it is important for the government to remember that the member for Lowan will be travelling for over 4 hours to get to the house, and she will be arranging babysitters or bringing carers with her. Something I think we should all remember is that this place is a workplace. The government say that they support women, and it is certainly difficult when you do not get any notice of meeting dates if you are a mum or a dad and you are trying to organise care for your children. So given that these two members will be returning with young children and live quite a distance away, I just thought I would bring that to the attention of the government to perhaps consider.

But now I will move onto the bill at hand, and this is a bill that amends the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to support the introduction and implementation of an online platform for compliance management of food and catering businesses across Victoria’s local government areas. So just for a bit of background, following the handing down of the 2018 business regulation review the Department of Health and Human Services recommended reforming food safety regulations and regulatory burden costs for businesses, and for local councils to implement that by moving to a single online platform for regulatory compliance ease. Currently councils have the responsibility, but this is basically an online portal that will make it easier hopefully for the councils to cut red tape. It will not actually reduce regulation; it will hopefully reduce the red tape or the regulatory burden that sometimes the Food Act is interpreted as requiring.

It is not the actual Food Act that is the challenge; it is the interpretation. With 79 councils across the state there can sometimes be 79 interpretations, and when you have got food businesses that have premises in several councils it can be quite challenging for them to have different interpretations. Such an example is where one council might interpret the Food Act to say that you need to have stainless steel around the back of your stove and oven areas, whereas with a pizza oven that might be completely ridiculous and one might interpret that it is necessary. It is that sort of complication and frustration that the small business regulation review identified after consulting with these businesses. I am sure all the members in here would often have constituents who own these food businesses coming to them, frustrated, and saying, ‘We just don’t know how to work with this because it’s just too onerous’. So I welcome the fact that the government are looking at making this easier, because particularly during COVID the hospitality industry has suffered greatly—probably one of the most affected. There are quite a few groups that have been most affected, but they are up there as one of them, so anything we can do to make the regulatory burden easier is a good thing.

On that note, it is interesting: people say that in opposition all you do is attack and whinge, but the reality is that in the 58th Parliament—that was my first Parliament that I was elected to—80 per cent of the bills that went through the Parliament were actually unopposed, as will be the case with this one. When something is a good idea, you work toward making it happen, and I think this is a very good idea. Obviously that does not take away your responsibility as an opposition to ensure that you consult and that you look for any challenges back in your electorate, or across the portfolio if you are the shadow, to make sure that any unintended consequences are identified and addressed. That is what we are here to do; it is to debate that situation. There are some concerns, which I will talk about, but overarchingly it is a very good idea that we get a way forward for businesses to have their permits issued and that the complications and confusions that have occurred to warrant this change get sorted.

The Food Safety Act is an act that should protect us from all sorts of things. One of those is disease from food being prepared in a way that ends up with people getting sick. An example of that is salmonella. So with this portal, it will also mean that real-time action can take place if there is an outbreak of something like salmonella, and that is a really good outcome that we would want to see.

At this point in time there are already five companies that the 79 councils across the state are working through that provide this service. So for this to actually work, for the government to take this on—it is actually an opt-in system, it is not a mandatory system—there will have to be at least 70 per cent of the councils that want to come on to this for it to be cost-effective. I will get into costs and the concerns around it a bit later.

If you look at the history of food safety because, obviously, coming from the dairy industry and producing food on a farm and exporting that product, as we did to about 49 countries around the world, our clean, green image, people’s health and wellbeing and food safety hazard have been important to me. At the risk of sounding like the member for Essendon, I just thought it might be interesting to note that the first food safety law in England was in the 1200s—that is how far back these sorts of laws go. That was around bread and the ingredients. More interestingly, Germany’s was around beer and making sure people did not get sick—and that was in the 1400s—from the consumption of beer. So that is very fascinating. I always found that a really interesting piece of trivia that I thought I would share with the Parliament.

So what are some other things about this bill that I should identify so you can understand why I think it is a good idea? You probably should note that the bill also has some miscellaneous amendments to enhance the administration of primary food production and processing standards for eggs and egg products and seed sprouts, hence my thoughts around salmonella, because the egg industry do a fantastic job in Australia with food safety, and the processes we have in all our agricultural sectors are very impressive. That is why we have earned, as a nation and as a state, our reputation of being so good at food production.

Interestingly, this will affect the mobile food vans that produce food, and you have all been to festivals. Unfortunately many of them have been cancelled because of the pandemic. We have seen our folk festival in Port Fairy cancelled and many of our activities. Let us hope very soon we can get back to supporting those festivals. Those food vans that would be at these festivals—there are 30 000 of them across the state that operate. It is very important that we make sure we make things easier for them, because they often go through many councils, so it would be really quite onerous for them as small business operators to be getting permits. Particularly of note was the fact that they talked about this portal that New South Wales is looking at it as well, which would be great because the festivals that these businesses go to are not just in Victoria. In electorates like mine South Australia is not far away and crossing the border is something we usually do quite regularly, not so much at the moment.

I thought I would also talk about the fact that one of the worrying concerns when we did the consulting for this bill was the fact that the government told us during the bill briefing that they had consulted twice with each council, so they had consulted extensively. But I have received emails, when we did our consultation as an opposition, from many councils, both city and country, and they are very concerned that the consultation process did not talk to them about the cost of this. They certainly talked about the design of the portal, but they were not made aware that there would be a cost. That is a very big concern. I think we all know, particularly in the rural councils, the way they are struggling to get enough rates in at some councils. The income is not there, and for them to have to manage all the assets like ovals and provide the services like aged care, HACC services—home and community care services—they are just really struggling. Another cost on that council would be absolutely abhorrent. In one of the emails one of the local councils said it seems unreasonable to expect local government to pay to use a system which is required by the state, especially without consultation. They say there that they have not had consultation about that, and they note that they have not budgeted for this or been informed of the level of cost involved.

The last thing we want to see is more cost on local government. I could not get at the bill briefing confirmation of how much the government have budgeted to build this portal. The last thing we need is for costs to blow out and for those costs to be passed on to businesses, because after you have had a pandemic where hospitality has been absolutely smashed, we need to do everything we can to support businesses. I know Moyne shire, for example, have actual waived a lot of the charges that they would normally charge because they are so acutely aware of the businesses’ viability at the moment.

I looked at some of the premises that at the moment are struggling under the COVID rules of 10 per room up to 40 indoors. Some of these premises are huge, especially out in the regions where we have a lot of space. You know, there are a lot of bowls clubs; some of these are sporting clubs that are run by committees and they are really struggling to get through this pandemic. When you have got masses of square metres available and you have only got 10 people in the room I wonder, as a previous business owner, how you would manage the costs of turning on the lights and the heating and employing the chef to be able to even put on a meal for 10 people. Wouldn’t it be smart to say, ‘Look, it’s one person per 4 square metres’, and then that is sort of one standard rule? Obviously we need restrictions during this period. We need to make sure we do not compromise what we have achieved, but it just seems a bit unfair when there is all the space that cannot be used more effectively.

The other thing I worry about with this bill is that whilst the costs have not been shared, when we look at the history of the Labor government’s ability to manage IT systems, there is a long, long history of stuff-ups. We only have to think of what happened with Fines Victoria very recently. Births, Deaths and Marriages Victoria is another one where the government just does not seem to be able to oversee a systems management situation and has major, major stuff-ups. And that is very embedded in the Labor government, if you go back to the development of Myki. And what about HealthSMART? What a waste of money that turned out to be. Was it $323 million that was set aside? And then after several years of spending that money they needed another two hundred and some ridiculous amount of millions. So it was $320 million initially, and they wanted another $230 million, I think it was. The whole thing was just an appalling mess. So that is my concern—that we give this job to the government. The idea is great, but their history with managing IT systems is appalling. I do not know what it is about them—they have just got to do it themselves and not learn from anyone.

At the moment we are all going out in our electorates. Now I am here in Melbourne I am trying to support the businesses in Melbourne, going out and eating at night. The government has seen New South Wales do a really, really good job of contact tracing. We are nine months into the pandemic, and yet the government still has not managed to get a system in place, like QR codes, for example, which is what New South Wales are using. Yes, businesses have been open for a very short period of time—as in hospitality and restaurant businesses—but I go into them and they have got their QR codes up and running. Why wouldn’t we be doing that as a state through a coordinated approach? Why are we leaving businesses to have to try and do their best?

Even a few weeks ago when we opened up the restaurants and cafes in the regions, these young kids were grateful to be back at work, but they were being asked to take contact details, ask people where they were from and get evidence of whether they were from a postcode that was allowed out of the ring of steel or not. It was just so difficult for the businesses. It was all the onus placed on them and massive fines if they did not comply. People were terrified, and I think we should not forget that, particularly when we look at New South Wales and we see how well they have done. They have got a system in place; can we just copy it? It is nine months later.

Whilst I am very supportive of making it easier for businesses to not have to have heaps of red tape, I am very concerned about the ability of the government to actually deliver this—to roll it out and deliver it. These fears are fairly reasonable given the history of the Labor government’s ability when we look at, as I said, Fines Victoria, with how many fines that did not go out and the mismanagement of that, and the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. I had people coming into my office just needing to get a death certificate for their recently passed partner, and these elderly people were just so, so devastated. They could not get power turned on. All sorts of issues were resulting from it. So I think there is quite a reasonable concern there when you look at how embedded this problem has been in the past.

The other thing I thought I would mention is that the government have had a pretty rotten week. The bills that they have put forward have had problems, and we have had to have amendments come back. We saw the member for Forest Hill point out that the Working with Children Act 2005 had actually been repealed. So the government is really in a bit of a shambles. And something I thought I would bring to the attention of the health minister as well is that there are some spelling errors in the bill. So maybe he needs to think about a house amendment, because there was one word—I cannot remember what the word was, but it was meant to be ‘identify’—and I looked up the word; there was no such spelling in any Google search that I could find to suggest there was any word like it. This government has had I do not know how many more staff than ever before, so it is a bit of a shame that we are not taking responsibility. The legislation should not be coming to the house with errors like we have seen, and this is the third bill that has an error in it. I just respectfully suggest to the Minister for Health that he have a look at that spelling error. I will happily send it through to him and identify it—it was in section 19 of the act actually. So it is really concerning when we have got a minister who probably should not be accepting that sort of standard. I mean, spellcheck is not that hard, and this is a word that is not actually a word, so I am sure spellcheck would have identified it.

Look, overarchingly, the fact that we will have real-time ability for health inspectors in the 79 councils to go if there is an outbreak of something like salmonella and jump on that quickly means that that keeps our community more protected than we already are. I say that knowing we do a very good job at this point, but continuous improvement cycles are something I will always support. The fact is that the health inspectors will have a tool—probably like an iPad; that is what they are suggesting—so they can go to businesses instead of there being this anomaly between businesses and that frustration.

This bill does apply to the beauty sector as well, who have really been compromised during the pandemic and still are in a situation where they have not been respected for the knowledge they have on cross-contamination of infection, which they are well trained in. That is why we do not see in the health industry outbreaks of blood-borne viruses going from one person to another, because they have been fully aware of their responsibility in that area for a long time. For them to be left so late in the restriction easing is actually disrespectful, and I think they are struggling and trying to put their case forward. This bill actually does affect them, because the health inspectors go to the beauty therapists as well and check on their premises. I remember a girl coming to me. She said, ‘You know, I’ve got a health inspector saying that I need to have a tap here. It makes no sense’. That sort of stuff will be able to be more clearly worked out for people, and the businesses will know with absolute surety that there is consistency between the 79 councils and those 79 councils will not have 79 interpretations of the act.

As I said, I support the bill. I do have some concerns. I worry that because the government cannot seem to get systems management right—and that has been an embedded problem for a long time—we do as an opposition need to bring that to the attention of the house so that we can have that noted and watched carefully. I worry for the councils that there has been no consultation about the cost, and I particularly note that regional councils cannot afford extra costs; they cannot carry these costs. Businesses cannot have that cost, so it is so important that this management tool actually comes in at a price that is affordable. The government has mentioned a price of around $15 to $20 per business, so that needs to be delivered, not blown out. Cost blow-outs—we saw the Grattan Institute talk about that this week and how the three Big Build projects on the government’s agenda have blown out collectively to a whopping great big figure of $11 billion, which is an absolute disgrace. Taxpayers really are in a situation where they are watching closely. They want their leaders to invest well in infrastructure projects, and I hope we see a lot of that in the regions as well as in the city in the upcoming budget, which is only two weeks away.

A member interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: We do, and in South-West Coast we need, not want, stage 2 of the hospital to be completed. How can you start something and six years later still not have completed it and have no—

Mr Angus interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: That is right. That is what they do. That is exactly right, member for Forest Hill, not the member for Ferntree Gully. We do need some of those projects. I am more than comfortable to see investments so that our communities get the infrastructure they need, but I am very worried about waste. I know businesspeople are very focused on waste—you have to be in business—so anything that reduces waste and streamlines their costs is good. I think the bill will do this if the system designed by the government actually is able to come in at a reasonable cost. It is a big ‘if’, as I said. The member for Forest Hill was not here when I mentioned the fact that the government does not have a good history of that. Just recently there was the Fines Victoria disaster—

A member interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: Myki. That is what I said. This problem goes back a very long time; it is embedded in Labor governments’ behaviour of not being able to deliver. You might actually have more knowledge about the HealthSMART debacle of millions and millions of dollars—

Mr Angus interjected.

Ms BRITNELL: I cannot remember what it was called either, but there is an endless list.

I note with caution that the councils have been looking forward to businesses having this opportunity in their councils, but the cost is significant. The problem to them about the cost is wanting some knowledge that it will be the $15 to $20 that it costs at the moment and no more. On that note I will conclude, with those concerns noted. We do not oppose the bill, and I sincerely hope this outcome of assisting businesses at this time would be something we would all want for business, particularly for the hospitality—who have struggled—and the beauty industries.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (16:01): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Food Amendment Bill 2020 and in particular to pick up on a range of significant issues and also a lot of policy work from our government over the course of this term in relation to food standards. It is really critical stuff each and every day. Whether we are going to restaurants or whether we are at the supermarkets, with the quality of the food that we eat and that we purchase we need to know from when it is first grown to the time it is manufactured and transported and then obviously sold and served to us that there are particular safeguards in place to protect people’s health, to maintain standards and to provide a level of truth in the advertising and reporting in relation to the food standards and the food quality that is provided to all Victorians.

This goes back of course to FSANZ, well known to me—Food Standards Australia New Zealand. It is a statutory authority run of by the Australian government. But in particular, in the health portfolio, it develops food standards for Australia and New Zealand, and that code is enforced by state and territory governments and departments and really does set the tone for really significant work. For many of us it is all about just tucking into a meal, but so much of food regulation and compliance is not all about red tape and burden, it is also about keeping people safe. For the people who are served in our nursing homes, the people who are served in our hospitals, the people who are served food by Meals on Wheels and in home and community care programs—so many different instances where people need to be protected—it needs to be made sure that what is provided to them is nutritious, what is provided to them is safe and what is provided to them is what they have paid for. It is a really, really important regulatory role of governments to give communities confidence and to provide a level of accountability on those that procure those foods, those that seek to sell them and those that develop them to make sure that they meet standards that keep people safe.

In the key aspects here the first amendments relate to the introduction of a statewide online combined business application portal, and all 79 councils have signed up to and gotten involved in this program. I think that is an affirmation of the fact that we are on the right track here in relation to the work that we want to do. We will call it the online portal, and this is a function of the small business regulation review conducted by Small Business Victoria between 2016 and 2018. Different councils interpret some of the food safety laws differently. We know that when we are talking about a single point of online registration for some 70 000 fixed, mobile and temporary food businesses—very significant numbers that have touchpoints right across our community—we need to make sure that what they do meets the obligations set down under law. As hungry as we all might be at different times, we really take for granted and rely on the fact that the regulatory environment is effective, accountable and keeping us safe. That also goes for food businesses, many of whom of course work really hard to provide great quality. They want to establish their businesses, build their businesses and make sure that quality need not trump the capacity for them to build their businesses and grow their reputation. There is a lot of regulation, but it is about keeping people safe and it is about giving people confidence in the products that are provided.

I want to touch on a couple of other elements that are significant historically around food standards and also some of the innovations that we have seen in the community and in our health services. For example, as I flick around here for a couple of other notes that I took down, I remember well that out in Heidelberg the Mercy Health Hospital for Women—the fantastic new hospital out there which was built under the Bracks and Brumby governments at the same time that we rebuilt the Austin Hospital—operates the only breastmilk bank in Victoria. It is a really significant program that caters for hundreds of mothers for whom breastfeeding has been interrupted for a range of different reasons.

We actually came up against it at the time, when the now Premier was Minister for Health, around a range of food transporting standards that we had to meet and some other regulatory requirements around transporting the breastmilk that was at the breastmilk bank there at the Mercy Hospital for Women to provide that service to so many new mothers—a really critical service, an innovative service offered by Mercy Health. I think our key sticking point was around meeting a lot of the food standards and food transport standards. Of course breastmilk is obviously a nutritious and beneficial food product for new babies. It just goes to show the importance of those checks and balances. The then health minister, now Premier, found a way through that maze of regulations. Again, it is all about keeping people safe and about making sure that when innovative practices and great ideas come forward, as Mercy Health have done on many occasions—and that is just one example that has provided great benefits to new mothers in difficult circumstances—that the food quality regulations are followed. They are significant and they play a key role.

There is nothing worse, as anyone who has suffered at the wrong end of it would know, than food poisoning and other matters. When the system does not work for you, everyone pays a price. It is really important that people have confidence that when perhaps their hunger gets ahead of their better judgement there is accountability and there is regulation around the whole continuum of the way in which food is provided and sold in our community.

The previous speaker, the lead speaker for the opposition, also touched on some concerns. She felt the government had been a bit shambolic. I just want to remind the lead speaker for the opposition that the last Roy Morgan poll that I saw—and it is not everything, but it is something—had the Victorian government at a 58.5 per cent approval rating compared to 41.5 per cent for the opposition, so I think if there is anything—

Mr Angus: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, in relation to relevance, the member is going off on a complete frolic. I ask you to draw him back to the bill.

Mr CARBINES: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, as the lead speaker for the government I did follow and seek to rebut a number of claims made by the lead speaker for the opposition. This was one of the comments that the lead speaker for the opposition made, and I simply seek to make, in my contribution, a brief reference to rebut the claims of the member for South-West Coast.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were digressions by the lead speaker for the opposition, as there have been digressions by the member for Ivanhoe. I do ask you to direct your comments back to the bill.

Mr CARBINES: Absolutely, Deputy Speaker; I am pleased to do so. Can I say that I am sure other colleagues will pick up on some of these matters that I have raised. I think we can affirm that the government continues to provide a significant level of public policy leadership in relation to food standards here in Victoria.

Lastly, can I just add that as chair of the food standards and food quality audit that we have been doing across public sector aged care and also public sector health services, I have been pleased to do that food audit work and to meet the amazing and fantastic people working in the kitchens of public health services, with the number of meals that they pull together and serve to people in our health services—our patients and staff—and the fantastic work that they do. We are going to do a food audit on procurement to make sure that regional businesses have the opportunity to engage fairly and appropriately with what are in many cases the biggest employers in regional communities outside local government—their health services. We want to make sure that procurement practices provide great opportunities for local businesses in regional Victoria, not just in the metro areas. We want to make sure that we are supporting our workers in the health system who provide tens of thousands of meals every day. Of course not everyone wants to tuck into a meal when they are in hospital and they are not at their best, but it is about making sure it is nutritious, making sure what is provided is appropriate and also looking at how we can do things better. We found some fantastic examples of the great work and the love for the job that the people who work in our food services in aged care and hospitals have. If we can do more to make those meals nutritious, I am really thankful for the opportunity in our election commitment to deliver on that food audit chairing work for our government and make those recommendations to the health minister to act on. This is a really important bill and a great step forward in the work that we do to keep Victorians safe.

Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:11): I am delighted to rise and make a brief contribution on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. I will add to the comments made by my colleague the member for South-West Coast, who covered the bill fairly well, I thought, in her 25-minute contribution, which was quite outstanding.

As you have heard, in 2018 the small business regulation review was handed down, and it recommended that food safety regulations reform took place. What was required was a single online platform, which would ease both compliance and regulation for small business. Those of us with country electorates certainly understand the pressures on small business. I will go into that a bit further on in my contribution. This bill will amend the Food Act 1984 and also the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to provide that online platform. For the most part, this is a positive step.

As I say, businesses in the Ovens Valley continue to tell me about red tape and about multiple regulation platforms, and it is very frustrating and time consuming. The Ovens Valley has many exciting businesses. If we look in towns like Cobram and Yarrawonga along the Murray River, we have got magnificent businesses along there. The Beach Club at Cobram, with Josh and Louisa, they do an outstanding job there. They have just set up and they are looking for every leg-up they can get to make sure that their business is successful over the next 12 months. They provide a great service for our community, as does the Ambience Bakery with Dave Bate. Down the highway, or upstream, you have got Rosie Vodusek at Rich Glen, another award-winning business, and they have got so much to offer, not just to people in my electorate but to visitors that come from all over Australia to visit our region. Many of them stop at Rich Glen because it is an outstanding establishment. They are all hard workers, the people in these businesses that I spoke about, they are all very hard workers. It is really important that we do offer them a single point of regulatory requirements, because we want to make life easier for these businesses, not more difficult.

Although I mentioned Cobram and Yarrawonga, in an electorate like I have that covers such a broad region we have got the King River Cafe near Milawa at Oxley. Those sorts of communities also have lots of small businesses, and they go further, into Bright, Myrtleford and Mount Hotham. I mean, there is no doubt that as you move through my electorate there are businesses of all ranges, all faced with different regulations. They consistently tell me, whether it is liquor licensing for some, whether it is food handling for others, it is about all this red tape. So I think this will be a positive step forward, if we get it right.

The main thing to remember in some of these small businesses is that the pressure is on them because they are the cook, they are the cleaner, they are the bookkeeper, they are the HR person and they are the waiter and the waitress in their business, so it is not as though they have multiple people who will come and do all this work for them. This is why streamlining the process—and this is why I support this idea—and anything that we can do that streamlines the process will be a major benefit to these smaller businesses.

But I do have some concerns, and the concerns are, I suppose, when we look back at this government’s history in terms of pushing up costs all the time and passing on costs—increasing costs, inventing costs. If it turns out that local government is tasked with the responsibility, as is suggested, someone is going to have to pay. In my electorate we have got the Moira shire, the Rural City of Wangaratta and the Alpine shire, so we have got three different local governments. As the member for South-West Coast talked about, there are sometimes different regulations in different shires and in different councils.

Just while I am on councils I certainly want to congratulate the new councillors that have been elected in Moira shire: Wayne Limbrick, Peter Elliott, Andrew Goldman and Julie Brooks. It is nice to see a few fresh faces, all with a passion for local community and local community prosperity. But they will also make good business decisions. The Rural City of Wangaratta has got two new faces: Jack Herry and Irene Grant. Although Irene was there some years ago, she will make a great contribution there. In Alpine shire there is Kelli Prime, Charlie Vincent and Katarina Chalwell. These councillors are given this responsibility of making sure that the costings for this platform do not get out of hand. It is really important that these new councillors—here is lesson 101—make sure that the costs do not get pushed onto these local councils. Because with rate capping there are limited opportunities for them to broaden their base in terms of income, and they have to pass it on. Then when they pass that on these new councillors get a bit of a shock because people start ringing them, day and night, saying, ‘Hang on a minute. We were told this was going to be $15 to $20 and now somebody’s telling me it’s going to be much higher’. So we have just got to be careful as we move forward to make sure that the costs are as the government says they are going to be, because we have seen blowouts in every project that this government has done. We are talking about major projects, but that does not matter. With minor projects and minor implementation like this, we will still see blowouts. So it is important that we do not just take it at face value, that we make sure that we hold them to account for what they have said is the dollar figure.

I notice in the bill new section 36C, ‘Online portal charge’, talks about the Government Gazette and‘the charge to be paid by a registration authority that is a council in respect of the online portal’. Again, we have been told in our briefings it is $15 to $20. I will be pleased with that, and small business will not shirk at that. But let us just see whether that really is the case. I do not want to be here a couple of years down the track looking back and saying, ‘Well, we were told one thing and it turned out to be another’. Because it is not just COVID that has caused financial grief for our small businesses. Many of our communities have been economically demolished through the bushfires. That has had a major impact in towns like Bright and down to Myrtleford and Harrietville. They had not recovered from that. They were still reeling from that when COVID hit, but even COVID for us with the New South Wales border closures has created a different dimension, because we are one community along our borders. Even places like Bright get their staff out of Albury-Wodonga, and they could not get access to staff and of course tourists and all that sort of thing. So they have seen a pretty tough year, and this is why I keep talking about costs, costs, costs. We have got to make sure that we do not pass on further costs at any given time, because they are going to take some time to get back on their feet.

We have already seen the discussion about the QR codes. It is not an expensive thing to set up, but it is another impost on small business. I understand why we need to do it. It is a good thing. But we have got to support these businesses. With some of these grants that we have been seeing come out from the government so many businesses have not been eligible. I said in this place only a few weeks ago that I am just disappointed that there are so many small businesses that have applied for some of these small business grants and not been eligible because of a technicality. They were sole traders; if they were not a sole trader they were a partnership. There was always some small reason why they could not qualify. I think I said once before that we really need a grant for those who slip through the cracks, because there are businesses that if they were eligible for the first grant they got the second, third and fourth, but if you are not eligible for the first, well, then you miss the second, third and fourth. There are businesses out there that have done very well. They have been eligible to get all the grants. And there are others that have missed every single one of them for various reasons, so we need to be very mindful of that. I know we are only talking small costs, but at the end of the day we have to protect our small businesses, because in regional Victoria that is the majority of what our businesses are.

As we have heard, the overruns, the billions of dollars that got overrun in metro tunnels and ripping up contracts and those sorts of things—we cannot afford to just pass these costs on to our small businesses. If local government are to manage the single online platform, we have just got to be sure that the buck does not stop with council. We have just got to monitor that as we go forward, because when you pass the cost on to council, they have got to pass it on somewhere else. Then all of a sudden small business starts jumping up and down, as I say, to the new councillors who have taken on this role, and I congratulate them for that. They will start to get the nasty phone calls about how the council is doing this or the council is doing that. At the end of the day it is not the council at all, it is the state government that has put these imposts on without supporting them financially as we go forward.

I will conclude my remarks there. Again, I do support what we are trying to achieve here, because small business is very important in everyone’s electorate—I get that. But as you would well understand, in our country electorates small business is the heartbeat of our small communities and we do not want to make life any more difficult than this year has already been for them.

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (16:21): I rise today to speak on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. This bill is about ensuring that the proper safeguards are in place. The bill will amend the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. These amendments will allow for cost recovery in the implementation, as we have heard from previous speakers, of an online portal. The portal will enable business application, but most importantly it will enable councils to cut the red tape and ease the burden of small businesses. In particular this will assist my council—Brimbank council of course—to be able to assist some of the small businesses that have been doing it tough this year. I take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected councillors and also the re-elected councillors on Brimbank City Council. No doubt this bill will, as I previously have said, improve consistency and ease the burden on businesses.

There is no doubt that St Albans is the hidden gem, as I call it, of the vibrant and diverse food scene in Melbourne. From Alfrieda Street in St Albans to Hampshire Road in Sunshine to Perth Avenue in Albion, we have a diverse variety of food, restaurants and local cafes. Now more than ever it is important that they receive all the support that they can get and that we, the community, continue to support local and buy local. Just on the weekend I had the pleasure of meeting a new business that was opening this week in Perth Avenue in Albion, Kingston Se Feliz. They are opening their doors this week, and it was fantastic to see that confidence of businesses. In particular on Perth Avenue I had the opportunity to visit Sadie Black Cafe and of course Mitko Deli, who have been operating for 30 years in Brimbank; that is an absolute milestone.

They deserve the best, and an easy system where they and the councils can actually provide that support online without the burden and complications. I do note that with the small business regulation review program that was conducted one of the points that I do want to share is that it did note that businesses were struggling to access quality, consistent information on regulatory steps required to open their retail businesses. Some businesses were spending up to 5 hours each week on issues related to complying with government regulation and requirements. You can only imagine that 5 hours per week added to a multiculturally diverse area like my electorate of St Albans, where language can sometimes be a barrier. That would be added hours and, I would say, a lot more anxiety and stress on those local businesses. So I am happy to see that this bill will make those amendments and changes so that businesses do not have to spend unnecessary time dealing with red tape and can make sure that they are actually positively operating and providing great food outlets for the local community.

As I said, this has been an absolutely tough year for all, in particular for our local businesses. I was really pleased to see on the weekend when I did visit my local traders in St Albans and Sunshine and Albion that they were back on track, and there were good reports coming from those local businesses. So we understand that we are now responding to the review, but we are also making sure that the 79 different councils, including my council of Brimbank, are able to implement the food regulations, making it very clear to businesses where to find quality, consistent information and regulations. That is really important—an easy one-stop information source for businesses rather than spending many hours unnecessarily trying to find information and so on. So the online portal will, as I said, ease the burden for small businesses and councils, and I think Brimbank council has a lead role in making sure that small businesses have that support and leadership. Hopefully the new council can provide that leadership, because now more than ever our local businesses are needing direction and a recharge after this very tough year.

This portal will also improve public health outcomes. It will have live and recent data available on outbreaks and investigations. I mean, just recently unfortunately I was a victim of food poisoning and it was just absolutely horrific. I will not name the premises—it was not in my electorate; I do want to note that for the record—but it was extremely surprising. I did not expect that, but it did occur, and it is so important to make sure that our businesses, our outlets, keep the risks very low, to zero, because for our most vulnerable, including our elderly, kids and those with allergies and underlying health conditions, it could have much more dire consequences than what I experienced, which was 48 hours of absolutely being unwell. So we must continue to provide proper food safety protections. Not only does it save lives but it provides confidence in our hospitality and most importantly in our cafe and restaurant scenes that there is proper food safety and opportunities for small businesses.

We know that this bill will ensure that the safety protections are in place. It will make it easier for food retailers to do business in Victoria. I would say Victoria is one of the best states when it comes to food outlets. We have the best, and you really appreciate the diversity that we have when you actually travel to other states and of course travel internationally. We have everything in one state, and that really says so much about our food culture, our restaurants and our local businesses. We need to provide and continue to provide support to those local businesses, making it possible wherever we can for them to continue to succeed, making sure that red tape continues to be cut and that the burden is lessened for business operators.

Most of the businesses in my electorate are family-run businesses. I just briefly spoke about a business that I did attend on the weekend, which was the Mitko Deli cafe, which has been operating for 30 years. On Monday I went to my favourite beauty and hair salon on Alfrieda Street, Nguyen Salon. Most of the traders in St Albans and Sunshine are small and family run, often by Vietnamese families who work very, very hard. They have some of the best, I would say, businesses across Melbourne and at the most affordable prices, and I think it really says a lot about my electorate that they could give the best quality service but also keep the costs down.

So that is why we need to continue to make sure that we support these businesses. I will always support small businesses and my local traders, whether it is in applying for grants or whether it is in getting those important support services from Brimbank council and making sure that we continue—as I said, language could be a barrier—to see new businesses coming into my electorate of St Albans, streamlining regulations and keeping the unfairly high regulation costs down. With the lack of information, we need to make sure that that continues to improve, and this is about making sure that we help support businesses not only to stay safe but most importantly stay open. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (16:31): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. The bill before us makes amendments to the Food Act 1984 and to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Behind these amendments is the small business regulation review that was undertaken in 2018 through the Department of Health and Human Services. Through their recommendations they looked at ways to reform food safety regulations and at the regulatory cost burden on small businesses as well as on local councils, who are actively involved in the processes to regulate these businesses, and more importantly, which is what we are really talking about here, the implementation of a single online platform for regulatory and compliance ease.

There are two players in this space particularly: the local government areas across the state and small businesses. I look at my electorate and I have four local government areas—Mansfield, Murrindindi, Yarra Ranges and Nillumbik—and pretty well all of the businesses in my electorate are small businesses. The small business regulation review of 2018, like so many other reviews, was done through Engage Victoria initially. This was part of what the government have called their initiative to establish and grow small businesses in Victoria. In 2016 they looked at introducing these reforms. In 2016 they started to think about it and we are in 2020 now; things certainly have not moved quickly.

The aim here is to really have a look at how things operate for small businesses—the regulations that they are subjected to and the processes that they need to deal with, not just to continue to operate their business but when they start up in those first days. Those first days can be quite daunting because you are looking at how you are going to run your business, but also the compliance element for new businesses may be something they have not dealt with before. I think importantly this is looking to find practical reforms to save the businesses time and money. It is about that ease. If we look at small businesses, the food sector is a huge component. We all know in Victoria in every town, every shopping strip and every high street in the city and in country towns how important the food sector is—the cafes, the hotels, the restaurants, the whole hospitality sector.

Also this bill is about food safety and the application of food safety laws and how they are interpreted. They are not always interpreted the same way, so it is important that the government does look at having something that is quite consistent, because when you are looking at food safety you are looking at the risks and the assessments that you need to do. There are breaches, and so you must be acutely aware of your responsibilities and accountabilities. Typically I do not think Labor are in the space of small businesses. Their background people do not necessarily understand it. The way that they engage with small businesses, even through the online platform, is not really actually talking to people and understanding. Even though they have within their ranks people who have run their own small businesses, through the whole COVID process I have spoken to many small businesses and they feel that their voices have not been heard. I do not think that that is a good thing at all. They say that whilst they might talk to an industry group no-one actually talks to them, and they want their voices to be heard.

I want to mention specifically the introduction of the online platform—the online portal—that businesses will be required to use. This is about reducing the cost and the regulatory burden on small businesses. It is being rolled out to councils across the state, and it will be a single point for online registration for Victoria’s 70 000 food businesses. They are fixed, such as the shopfronts that we know; they may be mobile, like food trucks, and we have all seen the rise of food trucks; or they might be temporary food businesses, and of course there are those that go out to farmers markets and fetes and things like that. This bill also has some miscellaneous amendments to enhance the administration of the primary food production and processing standards for eggs, egg products and seed sprouts. Eggs are always at the centre of attention because we often see that if eggs have been left out things can happen that can actually cause a whole lot of issues for people who ingest them.

The portal will be available to 10 000 small businesses and not just in the food sector. We have got hairdressers and tattooists that are regulated by councils. The change is needed here because we need consistent and transparent processes. Many businesses actually operate over multiple premises and even over multiple local government areas, and it can be exceptionally frustrating when they have got to deal with the different systems and processes, and it takes so much time and wastes time as well.

I look at a lot of the franchise businesses, and I will take the Beechworth Bakery as an example. The Beechworth Bakery is in Healesville, Bendigo and Ballarat, so the local government processes that they have in place at each one could be different. When they operate their businesses they have got to understand how each individual local government area works, and this can be extremely frustrating because they will think they have nailed it and they will move to another locality and find that it is quite different. I look at the Yarra Valley Chocolaterie & Ice Creamery, which started there and has done very well. It has been hit exceptionally hard through COVID, but they have gone and opened at Bellbrae and also on the Mornington Peninsula, and they have had to deal with councils on a whole range of things. They can tell you who are the easy councils to deal with and who are not the easy councils to deal with.

We have some sandwich vehicles. There are sandwich vehicles that go to a whole lot of industrial areas. There will be one premises that might have 70 vehicles that go to different areas across local government areas, and that is very frustrating for them. I think it is important that we have one system that makes it easier for them to do business. Small businesses have so many challenges that whatever we can do to make it easier is a good thing. For businesses it is that the requirements differ not just across councils but also within councils, and it depends on the officer who comes out to your premises. They may tell you something slightly different. They may interpret things quite differently. Many, many years ago we put in a swimming pool, and each time somebody came out to tell us what we needed to do they would tell us something different. We would think we had met the criteria, but someone else would come out and go, ‘No, you need to do that’, and it was like, ‘Why didn’t the last person tell us that?’. We failed pool safety three times and we were very conscientious and diligent and were doing everything that we were required to do, so I can understand how businesses would be extremely frustrated.

In Victoria at the moment there are five different IT providers of the administration and compliance platforms, so this will be bringing them in. The system is to be voluntary. The department maintains that if 70 per cent of councils opt to implement the platform it will gradually become mandatory by default, and this will take any choice away from local councils. It reduces the cost for businesses. There are concerns about costs being passed on to the local government areas. This is a big concern for rural councils that do not have revenue-raising abilities. It is a very different ball game in country Victoria, from the regional cities to the small towns. It is extremely difficult.

The councils were consulted on the design twice but they were not consulted at all about the cost, so they are bit peeved about that. I was a bit disappointed that when the shadow minister did the relevant consultation the Municipal Association of Victoria did not respond, but we did find out that they were supportive of this legislation, and it is not something that we are opposing. The overall cost of the implementation and ongoing maintenance has not been decided by the department, but modelling has suggested that perhaps the registration and maintenance fees will be about $15 to $20 annually, and the aim is to be cost neutral within a few years.

As I have said, small businesses have really struggled through this time, and I have so many restaurants and hotels that cannot open now to full capacity. I look at the Yarra Glen Grand Hotel, and Craig there operates across a couple of businesses. The Skinny Dog Hotel in Kew is also one of his. We have the Grand Central Hotel in Yea. They are new owners, and they are finding it particularly difficult to actually be able to open. Not every business was able to flip and deliver meals and change the way that they have been doing business.

I am absolutely staggered with the stats that more than 200 000 of Victoria’s 600 000 small businesses either have closed permanently or are on the verge of closing due to COVID. Behind every small business is a story, is a family, are people who have put their hard-earned money on the line to make their business successful. They have often taken out loans. They have stock. They have to work out what they can do and how long they can hold off, and at the same time pay the bills associated with those businesses.

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (16:41): It is a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. I am a bit perplexed that the predecessor in this debate, the member for Eildon, saw fit to have a crack at the composition of the Labor caucus and how we do not know anything about small business. The effect of that is of course that we are being lectured on our caucus not containing small business people by a former schoolteacher. That just seems to jar a little bit because—

Ms McLeish interjected.

Mr FOWLES: unlike the assertion from the member for Eildon, who has gotten very frothy all of a sudden, I know that there are a number of people in our caucus, including the member for Broadmeadows there and me who have come from small business, have enormous experience in small business, and—

Ms McLeish interjected.

Mr FOWLES: Oh, well, there we go. There we go. I take up the interjection from the member for Eildon—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, member for Burwood.

Mr FOWLES: All I have said is I take up the interjection, Deputy Speaker. That is a—

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, responding to interjections is unparliamentary, and for the member for Burwood to flag that he is going to do so is out of order and you should rule as such.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Warrandyte, for your instruction. The member for Burwood to continue, but I do ask the member for Burwood: through the Chair, please.

Mr FOWLES: I will continue to direct my comments through you, Deputy Speaker. I said the words ‘I take up the interjection’ in order that it gets picked up by the fine folk in Hansard, because it is an extraordinary allegation. It is an extraordinary allegation—

A member interjected.

Mr FOWLES: Oh, well, being lectured on what is unparliamentary by the member for Warrandyte! I mean, wowee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr FOWLES: Wowee! The member for Warrandyte having a crack—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Burwood, resume your seat. Member for Warrandyte, resume your seat. I will not tolerate this kind of behaviour.

Mr FOWLES: Boy oh boy, it is the end of a long week and there has been lots of counting going on. I think we have just reached the end of some tethers, it would appear. That is absolutely extraordinary. We now have the stickler for parliamentary procedure who caused a suspension in this place this week—

Mr Angus: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, it is clear the member is straying wildly from the bill. I am not sure he has actually referred to the bill. He is just going off on a bit of a rant here and there, so perhaps you could bring him back to the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Many members have varied their discussion on this bill, but I do ask members to speak to the bill before the house.

Mr FOWLES: I would be delighted to speak to the bill just as soon as the interruptions from those over here desist on their thoroughly frivolous points of order.

I rise today as someone who has worked in, managed and owned commercial kitchens across a period of 20 years. I have been involved in the sale and transfer of a number of these, so—

Mr R Smith interjected.

Mr FOWLES: I take up that interjection as well.

Deputy Speaker, can I ask that you remind the member for Warrandyte to wear his mask properly in this place? This has been a source of issue right throughout the course of this week. He lowers his mask in order to interject, which he knows is disorderly, and in the same breath has a crack at me for taking up interjections. It is just a farce, Deputy Speaker. I would ask you to remind him of his obligation in this place to behave in a manner that is approaching adult.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Burwood, I am in the chair, no-one else is in the chair, and I ask you to speak to the bill.

Mr FOWLES: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to insert a point of order there, and I am sorry that I did not use the correct words.

Mr R Smith: Raise a point of order if you’re going to speak.

Mr FOWLES: Well, the member for Warrandyte is having a special afternoon; there is no doubt about that.

As someone who has been involved in the ownership of commercial kitchens and involved in the sale or transfer of a number of food businesses, I will bring I guess some lived experience to this in the 5 minutes I have remaining. I remember, as a fresh-faced 18-year-old, food inspectors sailing into the kitchen of Degrees Catering where I was then working on an extremely busy December afternoon and sending the place into an absolute spin double-checking and triple-checking temperature logs and maintenance records and responding to queries about how long a Christmas ham that was in the process of being sliced had been sitting out of the fridge. I have dealt absolutely, though, with food inspectors who were sensible and helpful but also some who were bloody-minded, including one who famously threatened to close down a kitchen in the middle of peak service due to one cracked floor tile.

I have watched with horror as some councils have destroyed businesses who have experienced public health events through no fault of their own, such as through salmonella contamination in eggs which, whilst uncommon and obviously regrettable, does not reflect necessarily on the food business given that there is no ready test for salmonella contamination inside an egg. And I have watched with horror as some of those regulatory bodies have allowed restaurants to continue trading despite rodent infestations. I have wholeheartedly embraced the hazard analysis critical control point kitchen standards and welcomed the consistency that this brought across jurisdictions, particularly as at one point I was operating three kitchens across two different states.

These reforms are the very hallmark of good reform because they simplify regulation and compliance, they simplify dealing with government and they simplify the obligations of businesses. But importantly they in no way derogate from the very important matters of public policy that the regulations address, and that is the very hallmark of good regulatory reform.

The online portal that is created under this bill is a single statewide portal for compliance management that allows a council to get the information they need on an application for registration of new premises—something that can take a fair degree of time and, particularly at the crucial start-up phase of the business, can be particularly onerous. It will cover renewals, the notification of the operation of food premises and information relating to the registration and compliance of food premises. Councils are going to be responsible for funding this, and that will depend of course on the size of the council, but it is really important to note that we have had 79 councils indicate their support for this program—their support for the ability to have one IT platform that deals with all of their food registration matters. We anticipate that whilst they all will initially take it up in relation to mobile food businesses and water carriers and the like, over time that will extend to a great many councils, perhaps the vast majority, running the totality of their food regulation via this platform.

I think the inconsistency in interpretation can be a cause of great distress for small business owners. Those owners of a cafe in Ashburton and a restaurant in Ashwood can find themselves having to spend enormous time navigating two systems that are different in practice, that have different interpretations of the same legislation and that have different personnel, and so to the extent that we can harmonise any of that is particularly valuable. And as we move into summer and out of restrictions, reducing fees and barriers to operation could not, frankly, be more important. That brings me to the outdoor eating and entertainment package business grants which are helping our local favourites get back online. We need to do everything we can to support these businesses throughout this process.

I apologise to the member for Broadmeadows. I was interrupted numerous times by those opposite, and I am doing my best to wind up. I will add quickly that we have seen some great initiatives from the Burwood Neighbourhood House and local faith organisations in my patch looking for that funding out of that program, and that has been particularly valuable in my patch. The community organisations particularly—this is the last point I will make—cannot just factor the regulatory cost into their pricing. There is no pass-through when you are in fact providing food as a welfare service, and it is especially important for them, and on that basis I think these are terrific reforms and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (16:50): I am pleased to rise to make a brief contribution on the Food Amendment Bill 2020. I note that the purpose of the bill is to do a number of things but particularly to amend the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to support the introduction and implementation of an online platform for compliance management for food and catering businesses across Victoria’s local government areas. It includes provision to, as I said, introduce an online platform allegedly to reduce costs for and regulatory burden on small businesses and miscellaneous amendments relating to a range of other matters.

The points I really want to make are particularly in relation to the online portal. As other members have mentioned, the government has a very chequered history in relation to any IT project that it has ever been involved in. That goes right back to Myki on a macro scale, it goes back to the schools one that crashed when the minister flicked the switch and everyone logged on at the same time some years ago and a range of other matters.

Mr Fowles: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member making his contribution is off on a frolic about a whole range of matters that have nothing to do with this bill. I would encourage you to bring him back to the substance of the bill that is before the house, please.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Forest Hill has just begun his contribution, but I do ask him to refer to the bill, as all members should refer to the bill before the house.

Mr ANGUS: Absolutely. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker, I will certainly come back to that. But IT platforms are at the heart of this bill. I think the member was just trying to get one back on us for having messed up his speech quite dramatically a few moments ago.

Notwithstanding that, the fact that this government is the highest taxing, highest spending government in Victoria’s history is a concern to many Victorians and is a great concern to many small businesses here in Victoria, so to see that this bill is going to result in a further impost on the finances of local councils and in turn of local businesses is a great concern. It is a great concern to many people in this place, probably not on the other side but certainly on this side, because one thing we know for sure is that the current government, the Labor government, does not know how to manage money. We can see that, and other speakers on this side have referred to that in a range of areas, whether it is on the macro scale with the tunnels that are underway at the moment, whether it is not building the east–west link or right through to other, relatively smaller projects, including the alleged Hoddle Street upgrade that was done not that long ago but still blew the budget by I think it was around 50 per cent.

We have got just an indisputable record of incompetence in financial management. So to know that the government is going to dabble in this online portal and then charge those fees, which will flow down to small business, is a significant concern to me, because, as the member for Eildon eloquently put it in her contribution, many small businesses and particularly food businesses have been devastated this year as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The result for many of them was that they had to shut their doors, and some of them have only just recently reopened their doors to takeaway and are now reopening to limited seating. They have been absolutely smashed.

I think of some of the food businesses in the Forest Hill district. There are some wonderful businesses that are on their knees. Some of them have had it; they are down for the count. I was over at Forest Hill Chase just recently, and it was like a ghost town. It was during the lockdown period. I was over there meeting with business owners and operators, and I saw that a number of food-related businesses had in fact shut up shop. That is most regrettable, and that is just in one space on some of my local streets. I know that there are other buildings for lease and they are also victims of the events of this year. The last thing anybody needs that is trying to keep their small business alive, keep it going in this very, very difficult economic time and this very, very challenging time is to have a further impost on them. So I just put that out there, and I trust the government will listen and make sure that anything they get involved in in terms of portals and other things will not just be further cost-shifting of an IT disaster the likes of which we know this government has repeatedly been involved in over many, many years, passing it on through to the businesses on the other end of it.

In terms of other matters relating to the bill, I will keep my comments very brief because I know the member for Broadmeadows is particularly keen to make a contribution. I will probably conclude there just by saying that we can see on page 4 of the bill under clause 4 it talks about the online portal charge under new section 36C. The preceding section, the new 36B, talks about the charge for the use of the online portal, as does clause 3, which talks about the online portal. Then over in clause 53 as well in relation to the online portal it talks more about that and the costs involved in that. So I just urge the government to make sure that they do not just foist another fixed overhead onto small businesses—small businesses that are struggling so badly, particularly in some of the councils and, as the member for Eildon said, some of the rural councils that are struggling so much as a result of a whole range of events, not least of which has been the pandemic event of this year. So it is vital that that happens, and we trust that this government will not just burden further small businesses here in Victoria.

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (16:56): We need a national food plan. The MPs from Melbourne’s north have identified the wholesale markets at Epping as a fantastic centre to build a food and beverage precinct. This is the big picture that the Victorian government delivers, and this piece of legislation is just another piece within that about how we make sure that the regulatory burden on small business is made simpler and about how we make it easier to do this in the state of Victoria—streamline and enhance efficiencies and ensure the consistency of regulatory practice across Victoria’s 79 local councils.

The reforms respond to the small business regulation review that identified that food safety regulation carried the highest level of regulatory cost for businesses, so we are going to cut the costs, establish the big picture and connect it up nationally. Just to give you a sense of scale, Melbourne’s North Food Group looked at the necessary steps for the more than 400 food and beverage processing businesses throughout the region to make them export capable. That is what we are trying to do out in the north, and I commend the member for Thomastown and others for their support in trying to actually make this happen.

This is a strategy I defined in Building Smarter Cities: Stronger Communities in 2018. Most recently the blueprint Northern Horizons, looking for 50 000 jobs in the north, highlighted this as a key priority, one of four:

Former premier John Brumby told the Herald Sun low interest rates meant governments have a “once in century opportunity” to help “kickstart these private investments”.

Hume City Council chief executive Domenic Isola said on behalf of the Northern Councils Alliance that the region wanted “Commonwealth and State Governments to join us in helping to build a post-COVID future for our population and workforce”.

That is the big-picture strategy, the coordination, the collaboration. Let us get a national food plan up, let us actually harness what we have got, the advantages in Melbourne’s north. It was a state-defining significant decision to relocate the markets, and this is the bigger picture. That was done under the Bracks government, that relocation there. You have got the infrastructure; there is a 51-hectare state-owned parcel of land adjacent to it that provides the opportunity for logistics facilities of state significance and a hub of international standing, and it has the potential to deliver increased benefits, including manufacturing, logistics and distribution, commercial, education, research and training opportunities. And remember then you have got it already as a priority development zone. There are tertiary institutions nearby: Melbourne Polytechnic, RMIT University, La Trobe University—all that intellectual clout can be harnessed as well. So I commend the bill to the house. This is really what the Victorian government is looking to do, to build a brighter future, to connect up with the jobs. That is why this matters.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 10 November.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Circulated amendments

Circulated government amendments as follows agreed to:

1. Clause 1, page 3, lines 11 to 25, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

2. Part heading preceding clause 105, omit this heading.

3. Clause 105, omit this clause.

4. Clause 106, omit this clause.

5. Clause 107, omit this clause.

6. Clause 108, omit this clause.

7. Clause 109, omit this clause.

8. Clause 110, omit this clause.

9. Clause 111, omit this clause.

10. Clause 112, omit this clause.

11. Part heading preceding clause 113, omit this heading.

12. Clause 113, omit this clause.

13. Clause 114, omit this clause.

14. Clause 115, omit this clause.

15. Clause 116, omit this clause.

16. Clause 117, omit this clause.

AMENDMENT OF LONG TITLE

17. Long title, omit “the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015,”.

Further circulated government amendments as follows agreed to:

Clause 1, page 3, lines 26 to 34, omit all words and expressions on these lines.

Part heading preceding clause 118, omit this heading.

Clause 118, omit this clause.

Clause 119, omit this clause.

Clause 120, omit this clause.

Clause 121, omit this clause.

Clause 122, omit this clause.

Clause 123, omit this clause.

Clause 124, omit this clause.

Clause 125, omit this clause.

Clause 126, omit this clause.

Clause 127, omit this clause.

Clause 128, omit this clause.

Clause 129, omit this clause.

Clause 130, omit this clause.

Clause 131, omit this clause.

Clause 132, omit this clause.

Clause 133, omit this clause.

AMENDMENT OF LONG TITLE

Long title, omit “and the Working with Children Act 2005,”.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms D’AMBROSIO:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The SPEAKER: The question is:

That this bill be now read a second time and a third time.

House divided on question:

Ayes, 50
Addison, Ms Fregon, Mr Pearson, Mr
Allan, Ms Green, Ms Read, Dr
Blandthorn, Ms Hall, Ms Richards, Ms
Brayne, Mr Halse, Mr Richardson, Mr
Bull, Mr J Hamer, Mr Sandell, Ms
Carbines, Mr Hennessy, Ms Scott, Mr
Carroll, Mr Hibbins, Mr Settle, Ms
Cheeseman, Mr Horne, Ms Spence, Ms
Connolly, Ms Kairouz, Ms Staikos, Mr
Couzens, Ms Kennedy, Mr Suleyman, Ms
Crugnale, Ms Kilkenny, Ms Taylor, Mr
D’Ambrosio, Ms Maas, Mr Theophanous, Ms
Dimopoulos, Mr McGhie, Mr Thomas, Ms
Edbrooke, Mr McGuire, Mr Ward, Ms
Edwards, Ms Merlino, Mr Williams, Ms
Foley, Mr Pakula, Mr Wynne, Mr
Fowles, Mr Pallas, Mr
Noes, 23
Angus, Mr McLeish, Ms Smith, Mr T
Battin, Mr Morris, Mr Southwick, Mr
Blackwood, Mr Newbury, Mr Staley, Ms
Britnell, Ms O’Brien, Mr D Vallence, Ms
Bull, Mr T O’Brien, Mr M Wakeling, Mr
Guy, Mr Riordan, Mr Walsh, Mr
Hodgett, Mr Sheed, Ms Wells, Mr
McCurdy, Mr Smith, Mr R

Question agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Register of opinion on question

Ayes

Mr Andrews, Mr Donnellan, Mr Eren, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Hutchins, Ms Neville, Mr Tak

Noes

Ms Kealy, Mr Northe

Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr CARROLL:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 10 November.

Adjournment

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (17:13): (4783) My adjournment is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The action I seek is to have offices of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning opened as soon as possible. We have got a situation at the moment where we have got restaurants open, we have got supermarkets open, we have got other government offices open but our DELWP offices are closed. We are heading into a time in East Gippsland when people want to book camping sites, when people want to get their fishing licences and their shooting licences renewed. They might want to get firewood permits or just make general inquiries about pest control. There is a whole range of issues, but our office is closed. Now, our DELWP office in Bairnsdale is the home of Forest Fire Management Victoria, the catchment management authority, Parks Victoria and the department of agriculture, and it should be open. These people are public servants. They are there to serve the public. I am not having a go at the staff here, but the minister ought to direct that coming into the holiday season our DELWP offices are open to the public. It is not good enough that they are closed.

It is well known that earlier this year the region was savaged by fire and now we have been through COVID, and there has been a lot of government commentary about helping us out and helping us get back on our feet. One small measure that could be put in place is to open our DELWP offices to the public so that those tourists and those locals that are looking to get away on a camping trip and holiday in our area can actually speak to another person. Not everyone has internet access. Not everyone even has a mobile phone. They like face-to-face discussions with people to get information, and I encourage the minister to ensure that those offices are opened as soon as possible.

Armstrongs Road–Railway Parade intersection, Seaford, traffic management

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (17:15): (4784) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Minister, my constituents are keen for an update on the important safety upgrade of the intersection of Armstrongs Road and Railway Parade in Seaford as part of the Victorian government’s Seaford Road level crossing project. Significant works are underway to upgrade and signalise this notorious intersection with the inclusion of traffic lights to create a safer connection for locals and more accessible and safer access for pedestrians and cyclists. I want to acknowledge the tremendous advocacy from the local community on this important safety upgrade, particularly Monique Egan, Stuart Thompson and the many local residents who opened their doors to me when I was doorknocking the local area several years ago. I am absolutely delighted that we are able to deliver this important safety upgrade. Minister, could you please provide an update on the next steps in this important safety upgrade at the Armstrongs Road and Railway Parade intersection.

Donna Buang Road, Warburton

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (17:16): (4785) I have a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and the action I seek is for urgent repairs to be made to Donna Buang Road near the Rainforest Gallery, which has been severely damaged by a landslide. Local residents and agencies alike are really quite disturbed by the size of this landslide, and it needs urgent attention. The road is currently reduced to one lane managed by construction traffic lights, as the other side has quite literally been swept away, with the erosion continuing down the embankment. It makes it terribly difficult and dangerous for traffic to pass through. As you can imagine, Donna Buang Road is a steep, windy road heading to the top of a mountain. As we head into the summer, the risk of bushfire is always present. If repairs are not made urgently to this section of the road, the emergency vehicles will have enormous difficulty accessing the mountain should a bushfire ignite, placing the whole region in danger. Part of the Upper Yarra is already one of the most bushfire-prone areas in Victoria. This is a major concern amongst the community. Also, as we come out of COVID and people start visiting the regions and the outer areas of Melbourne in and around Warburton, they will be heading to this area. It is a lovely drive up to Mount Donna Buang, so we will have increased traffic, and it is particularly dangerous with this landslide that has happened.

Now, there has been an ongoing issue, along with this, about the management of the entire area in and around Mount Donna Buang. There has been hooning for years. Residents complain bitterly and business owners are very concerned. We have had a number of meetings with all agencies—with government agencies, with Parks Victoria, with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and with VicRoads. Tom Wilkinson, the sergeant at the Warburton police station, has been particularly good at gathering everybody together. I have had support in the past from ministers for environment, whether it was the now Minister for Water or the current Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, with this, trying to bring these agencies together to make sure that we had a commonly agreed approach to an area that does encompass so many different agencies.

But another issue that needs urgent attention is at the 10 Mile picnic area car park. They are looking for concrete bollards to install to stop a lot of the hooning. It is estimated that they need probably a dozen or maybe 14 bollards to help control the car parking and improve the quality. They need to be a certain size, because if they are less than 50 centimetres high they can get covered by snow. So they need to be higher than that and perhaps 3 metres wide. We understand that in the VicRoads area, Regional Roads Victoria, there may be some, and I would hope that they could be made immediately available to help with this whole area.

Gaffney Street–Sussex Street traffic management

Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (17:19): (4786) My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and the action I seek is that the minister join me on a visit to the intersection of Gaffney Street and Sussex Street in Pascoe Vale and Coburg North, where we are upgrading that intersection. At the last election the Premier joined me there to announce that we would remove the roundabout and install traffic lights at that intersection. This is a very dangerous intersection. It carries roughly 30 000 vehicles on it every day at the current point in time, and the projections are for many more. It is very close to a number of my primary schools—Coburg Special Developmental School, Coburg North Primary School and St Oliver Plunkett Primary School—as well as being right in the heart of the Coburg North shopping village and in very close proximity to Bunnings. We all know how people use an intersection close to Bunnings. I ask that the minister join me there to see the progression of the works as they have been unfolding over the past few weeks and also to help me provide an update to the community on the further work being undertaken at that intersection.

Mount Martha beach protection

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (17:20): (4787) I raise a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek from the minister is that she work collaboratively with the Mount Martha beach stakeholder group to establish an agreed plan to renourish the beach and to undertake further protection works. As I have mentioned on many occasions, this is a highly sensitive coastal system. We have had sustained loss for probably close to two decades now. We have had cliff erosion, undercutting and danger of collapse. The Napthine government committed to protection works for the cliff during its term in government. The current government after representations was prepared to continue that work and to complete it, but we do not have a permanent solution yet in terms of the sand loss.

The member for Flinders, the Honourable Greg Hunt, has managed to extract $1.5 million from the federal Treasury to undertake some works, and he has been negotiating a proposal with the department. Back in August last year it was generally agreed that relocation of around about $150 000 worth of sand—3500 to 4000 cubic metres—would renourish the beach and a stakeholder group would be convened to work on options for the future management of the beach, including determining the future scope of works and the nature of the works, including the potential for physical works. The stakeholder group has now been established. It has met on a number of occasions, and the consistent view of that group is that a permanent engineering solution is what is needed.

Unfortunately it appears that the government does not agree with that, and the communications as I understand it have not been all that great. Last Thursday the group wrote to the minister’s chief of staff and a senior department official and asked a series of questions—there has been a contract awarded for renourishment works—around who the contractor is, whether the contractor was on the approved supplier panel, the value of the contract, beach closures and so on. It has not been consulted on any of those issues, and there was certainly an expectation on the part of the commonwealth that they would be.

But more important, I think, is that there has been no consultation on the pedestrian and traffic management plan that has been put in place while these thousands of tonnes of sand are being moved, and we are now moving into the peak summer season for Mount Martha. This proposal has the capacity to seriously disrupt the operations. There was an existing group that could have been consulted; they have not been consulted. There is a real opportunity here for the minister to work with the group, and I ask her to do so collaboratively.

Nillumbik Shire Council

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (17:23): (4788) My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Local Government in the other place, and the action I seek is for him to ask his department to meet with the Nillumbik council to help facilitate support for local businesses, particularly in regard to the outdoor dining and entertainment package funded by the state government and also the $500 000 allocated to council to facilitate outdoor dining—all other councils have received that amount as well in the metropolitan area. My observation with food businesses in the area is that there is a great opportunity in the Shire of Nillumbik. We have some fabulous food and wine businesses and a beautiful natural environment. I think it is not only locals that will enjoy the ambience of the outdoor dining but many people from the inner city who just have not been able to get out and about. It is an easy train ride to Eltham, Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge, and they will see a great experience.

It was only when the trader associations raised it with me the day before outdoor dining was to begin in the state that I heard that the Shire of Nillumbik had not even sent out the link so that businesses could apply. This to me does not seem like it is in the spirit of really assisting these businesses who have done it tough and being on the front foot. I have also found another businessman that, after a nine-month period of trying to get an extension to his hours and to be able to trade outdoors, has actually been given the permit. But the hoops he has had to jump through are just astounding. One of the components of his permit is that he is not allowed to trade with doors or windows open. I really do not see how that can possibly comply with a COVID environment. I even sought that advice from the chief health officer.

I think that the traders are on board and the businesses are on board, but it really seems that council officers need to get on board. On the first weekend of outdoor trading one of my businesses that had a valid permit to trade in a car park out the front of their business received threatening phone calls where they were yelled at, not even at the start of the conversation, to cease trading when they had a stamped permit to be able to trade out the front. They were beset with threats that the local laws officer would send the police around, and at one stage the police attended four times in one day.

Nillumbik, we have got to do better on this. I have great faith in the incoming councillors, led by returning Cr Peter Perkins. I commend all the new councillors coming in. We can do better than this. I think that the Minister for Local Government and his office should do some work with Nillumbik, and I am sure we can have a better outcome than what is occurring at the moment.

Murray-Darling Basin plan

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (17:29): (4789) My adjournment is for the Minister for Water. The action I seek is that the minister stand up for Victorian irrigation farmers at the next ministerial council meeting of water ministers on Monday, 23 November 2020. There is a concerted effort by many to persuade governments to spend and build a bypass of the Barmah Choke to avoid the natural constraints that exist on the Murray River as it flows through the Barmah and Moira national parks. Demand below the choke has grown considerably in recent years as a result of unsustainable development in huge plantings of almonds by foreign-owned companies. In addition to this, it is growing as a result of water that was previously used for irrigation above the choke now being transferred downstream for use by the environment at various sites, including the lower lakes. The Barmah Choke bypass project should be given no credibility when it moves water to a hotter, drier climate, and it will ultimately lead to a market failure in many of those industries that are developing below the choke.

The Goulburn-Murray irrigation district has been renowned for its diversity of production, particularly with dairy, horticulture and mixed farming, and the diversity has enabled extraordinary productivity, letting us claim to be the food bowl of Victoria. It has a strong, viable future and with completion of the $2 billion Connections Project, it now has a world-class delivery system, delivering half the water it used to, which generates a reduced but stable level of dairy production as well as increased fresh fruit and all other forms of viable cropping and grazing industries that make flexible, strategic use of the available irrigation water.

Minister, we have fought long and hard against buybacks and the current federal water minister has promised that there will be no more buybacks. However, he is not prepared to legislate this, and given that it is policy only, we should bear in mind that it was only over 12 months ago that the then federal water minister, David Littleproud, was threatening water buybacks from our farmers in circumstances where the delivery was not reached by 2024. There has been no leadership from the federal government in seeking solutions, and it has now breached the agreement reached in the December 2018 ministerial council meeting of water ministers, where firm guidelines were put in place to ensure that water recovery would not have any negative socio-economic impacts on our farmers. In June this year water ministers reconfirmed that commitment.

Just as recently as last week there were six on-farm projects advertised by the commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and since September 2019 there have been 12. All these projects take water from our farmers. It is a breach of the agreement, and I ask the Victorian water minister to call the federal minister and his department to account at the forthcoming ministerial council of water ministers.

St Peter’s College, Cranbourne campus

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (17:29): (4790) My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide an update on the progress of the upgrade of St Peter’s College in Cranbourne. St Peter’s is a terrific regional college well led by Chris Black, Jeremy Wright and Julie Banda. The school’s motto is ‘Be not afraid’, and this year more than ever they have needed to harness that spirit of courage, community and resilience. St Peter’s College has an allocation of $4 million to be put towards an upgrade of the school. The upgrade includes the construction of a performing arts centre, a theatrette, general learning areas, specialist facilities and associated areas. St Peter’s College plays an important role in my local Cranbourne community by ensuring excellence in educational outcomes but actually most importantly by demonstrating the benefits that cultural diversity brings to us all. The upgrade will ensure that students at St Peter’s will have access to the best facilities possible. The local school community is very excited about this project, so I am looking forward to the minister providing an update on its progress.

Caulfield Racecourse Reserve

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:30): (4791) My adjournment is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide much-needed funding for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust to be able to implement their land management plan that is desperately needed to take the centre of the racecourse and turn it into a great community asset of open space, which would include sporting activities, passive and recreational activities and also a number of environmental and sustainable projects as well. This is something that I have certainly been very passionate about over a number of years now, and we have been advocating very strongly on our side. I have worked on the review of the trust with the member for Oakleigh to get a new trust put in place. The trust has done a fantastic amount of work consulting with many key stakeholders and has put together a fantastic plan. It really does cover a whole range of things, including a Tan-style walking and jogging track around the perimeter of the racecourse. They have worked very closely with the Melbourne Racing Club to ensure that we get something that makes Caulfield Racecourse continue to be the great racecourse that it is but at the same time is able to use the very much under-utilised space and turn it into a great, well-utilised open space. That is something that the Glen Eira residents desperately need.

As I have said on many occasions, Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality certainly in the metro region, and this would go a long way to improving this. We know during the COVID period that we have seen lots of people returning to parks, being able to get out and about with their families. Probably one of the real positives to come out of it is the fact that people are getting out and using our parks. This further goes to the point that we have got the facilities available but we need the funding. It is no use having a great plan if you have not got the dollars to go with it. The minister has been out—she actually opened the first annual general meeting of the trust. The trust is passionate, they have put the plans together, they have done the work and they now need the dollars. With a budget coming up in a fortnight, I look forward to seeing much-needed dollars to kickstart the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve public open space and to bring that to our general community—something that I am sure we desperately need.

Following statement incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 10 November:

Northern Bay College

Mr EREN (Lara) (4792)

My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education.

The action I seek from the minister is to update my constituents on the progress of the planning funding for the Northern Bay College master plan at the Goldsworthy Road 9–12 campus.

I was pleased to recently announce, along with the Minister for Education, that Northern Bay College will receive $690 000 to plan for the delivery of the next stage of Northern Bay P–12 college’s master plan at Goldsworthy Road 9–12 campus.

The Victorian School Building Authority will work with the school community and provide the principal and school leaders with Bricks and Mortar training, which covers the process schools should follow to successfully manage their project.

Developing detailed designs for this project now will mean it will be shovel-ready once capital funding is allocated in a future budget.

The school community has worked tirelessly to get this project ready.

The Corio-Norlane education regeneration began in 2006, to ensure young people and their families in the northern suburbs of Geelong have access to high-quality education in world-class facilities.

This saw the merger of the nine schools into one five-campus college.

I’ve been extremely pleased as the local member to have worked alongside the school community every step of the way through this process. Along with the Victorian government, we have been able to support schools like Northern Bay right across the Lara electorate. We have been able to help ensure that students can achieve their best results by planning for a future upgrade for their school community.

That’s why I am calling on the Minister for Education to update my constituents on the progress of the planning funding for the Northern Bay College master plan at Goldsworthy Road 9–12 campus.

Responses

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (17:33): Amongst the matters raised this evening, I am very pleased to respond to the member for Carrum regarding an update on the works that are happening around Seaford Road and the Seaford level crossing. Of course it has been a great pleasure over the last six years to work with the member for Carrum on removing level crossings in her community, and she has been a terrific advocate for not only seeing level crossings removed but other community improvements being made at the same time really consistently. Can I say that the member for Carrum has embraced that approach that we have taken as a government, which has been that if we can get in there and do more whilst we are removing level crossings, making communities safer and improving road congestion, then we do that. There have been a number of examples of that in the Carrum community. Certainly in Seaford, in the spirit of that, in removing that dangerous and congested level crossing, we have also taken the opportunity to upgrade the local road network to make it safer and easier for the local community to move around the area, and this is in addition to the $10 million of revitalisation works that have gone on already. There is the construction of 6 kilometres of a shared-use pathway as well.

There have been works to install traffic signals at the dangerous intersection of Armstrongs Road and Railway Parade. Those works have started, and I am pleased to advise the member for Carrum that they will be completed by the end of the year. These works, as I said, are installing traffic signals and there will be line markings to make this intersection safer for local drivers. I have mentioned some of the pedestrian works. There will be brand new pedestrian crossings at this intersection that will provide safer links for Seaford residents to the new shared-use path. But this is such a great part of the world with a wonderful beach, so it is also about providing better access to that beautiful beach at Seaford.

There are also works to build a further 6 kilometres of walking and cycling paths in Seaford. I am happy to advise the member for Carrum that this work is due to be finished by the end of this year, just in time for a great summer season in the local area. These works are all part of a $3 billion investment that we are making along the Frankston line, removing 18 dangerous and congested level crossings, building 12 new train stations along this corridor and upgrading signalling and rail infrastructure. But, as I said, where we can we are making other improvements. Having listened to the local community and responded to the advocacy of the member for Carrum, there are the roadworks and the cycling and walking shared paths. These are important investments that run alongside the work we are doing to remove dangerous and congested level crossings. I hope that information is of great use to the member for Carrum, and I again thank her for the work she is doing on behalf of the local community.

I believe nine other members raised matters for various ministers, and they will be forwarded to those ministers for their attention and response.

The SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 5.37 pm until Tuesday, 24 November.