Thursday, 12 November 2020
The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 10.05 am and read the prayer.
Announcements
Acknowledgement of country
The PRESIDENT (10:06): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.
NAIDOC Week
The PRESIDENT (10:06): This week communities across our state are celebrating NAIDOC Week. It is a time to honour the enduring culture, deep knowledge and many achievements of Victoria’s First Peoples. I offer our Parliament’s congratulations and best wishes for this week of celebration, reflection and hope.
Committees
Environment and Planning Committee
Membership
The PRESIDENT (10:07): I would like to advise the house that I have received a letter from Mr Bourman resigning from the Standing Committee on Environment and Planning, effective 11 November 2020.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:07): I move, by leave:
That Mr Grimley be a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Planning.
Motion agreed to.
Petitions
Following petition presented to house:
Northcote High School
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that Northcote High School (NHS) is one of Victoria’s largest Government schools. The school currently has 1,859 enrolled students and is predicted to have 2000 enrolled student by 2025. Enrolments could be much higher due to popular demand, however the school is already at capacity.
More than 40 per cent of the schools’ classrooms are portables, taking up almost all available land, limiting space for students to play and socialise during recess and lunch. There is a shortage of science laboratories, with one in four science classes happening outside of science-dedicated spaces. The small indoor gymnasium cannot fulfil the demand from the school or community. There is restricted access to the library due to overcrowding, one student must leave before another can enter. The heritage hall is of great concern with its structural and safety issues and the school canteen is a small and congested space which cannot service the number of students who wish to use it.
The school is at occupant capacity and is no longer fit for purpose. NHS has no additional space to place portables so it is crucial to proceed with the multi-story buildings approved under its Master Plan. This development will not only benefit the school but the wider community which makes extensive use of our facilities and will be a source of pride and wellbeing for the whole community.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to urgently fund Stages one and two of Northcote High School’s Master Plan to significantly alleviate limited space and congestion issues at a cost of 25 million dollars, to not only benefit the school, but the wider community who extensively make use of the current facilities.
By Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (1924 signatures).
Laid on table.
Papers
Papers
Tabled by Clerk:
Agricultural Industry Development Act 1990—Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry Development (ExtraTerritorial) Order 2020, pursuant to section 8(3) of the Act (Gazette No. G44, 5 November 2020).
Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004—Report, 2019–20 pursuant to section 31, by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.
Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978—Register of Interests—Return submitted by a Member of the Legislative Council—Primary Return, 9 November 2020 (Ordered to be published).
Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament—
Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017—No. 122.
Road Safety Act 1986—No. 123.
Surveillance Devices Act 1999—Reports, 2019–20 pursuant to section 30L, by the—
Game Management Authority.
Victorian Fisheries Authority.
Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003—Report, 2019–20 by Victoria Police, pursuant to section 37F.
Business of the house
Notices of intention to make statements
Notices given.
Adjournment
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:11): I move:
That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 24 November 2020, at a time to be determined by the President, or an earlier or later day and hour to be fixed by the President in the week commencing Monday, 23 November 2020, and the President will notify members of any changes to the next sitting date.
Motion agreed to.
Members statements
Rotary Overseas Recycled Playgrounds
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:11): As members know, I have a profound love of two countries on this globe: this country of Australia and the one of my heritage, Sri Lanka. I am pleased to congratulate, therefore, the Rotary club for their work on what is called the Rotary Overseas Recycled Playgrounds project. It all started with the Rotary Club of Flemington Kensington in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region, which has been fantastic in finding playgrounds that are being dismantled by municipalities or schools, recycling them, cleaning them up, refitting them and then putting them in containers and transporting them over to Sri Lanka, where the kids can have some playgrounds. The founder of this program is Peter Cribb from the Rotary Club of Flemington Kensington, a very inspiring man and a man that I pay tribute to for his work.
What they do is take these local playgrounds that were destined for landfill and send them overseas to needy kids. It all started with a playground from Leopold in Geelong, where Flemington Rotary club and Highton Rotary Club got together, cleaned it all up, fixed it all up and sent it over to Sri Lanka, and it is now in Kurunegala in Sri Lanka at a girls home. This program has grown to involve over 50 Rotary clubs across Victoria, and they are donating playgrounds to Tanzania, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and hopefully soon to Nepal and Bhutan as well. Today I say congratulations to Flemington Kensington Rotary Club and to all the Rotary clubs for the Rotary Overseas Recycled Playgrounds program.
Early childhood education
Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:13): Victoria is the Education State. We have earned this title due to our ongoing commitment to improving the quality and efficacy of education in this state from early childhood to tertiary and beyond. The school readiness funding recently announced by the Minister for Early Childhood, Ms Stitt, is the most recent example of delivering on this commitment to our state. School readiness funding is a permanent and ongoing part of the Victorian kindergarten funding model. It provides extra support to fund programs that build the capacity of kindergarten services, educators and families to help children get the most out of their early learning.
As part of this rollout the Victorian government will be investing almost $900 000 in kindergartens in my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region for 2021. Through this funding, kindergartens in the electorate can strengthen programs and services that improve the speech, literacy and language development of their pupils. They will also be able to hire more allied health support staff like speech pathologists, child psychologists and occupational therapists and to design programs and services to improve their social and emotional wellbeing. Australian research shows that one in five Victorian children starts school developmentally vulnerable, and once faced with difficulties, they find it hard to overcome. This investment will ensure that no child is left behind during the crucial stages of their learning process, irrespective of the disadvantage they face.
Local government elections
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:14): I rise to thank the Victorian Electoral Commission for their professional running of the recent local council elections. They are a model of probity and independence. I thank those in this role in wider geographies who undertake this role to safeguard democracy. I thank them for counting all the votes. I thank them for their care in ensuring against fraud and their careful, if somewhat slow, reporting of results as they are available. I thank all the candidates who ran, in particular those that did not try to discredit the system, divide the people, interfere with accounting or use their bully pulpit to prematurely claim undeserved victory. Thank you to the public servants everywhere who ensure that people’s rightful vote is upheld, that democracy is maintained and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
It is pleasing also to see the historic election of women into positions of power. Indeed I want to congratulate our two new Animal Justice Party councillors, Charlie Vincent and Julie Sloan, elected to Alpine shire and Bendigo respectively—the first councillors elected on an AJP platform and surely not the last. They will be magnificent representatives, and I look forward to working with them to spread kindness to animals and equality for people across this great state.
Multicultural communities
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:16): On 16 October the world was shocked and stunned as the news filtered through that Samuel Paty, a history teacher in France, had been beheaded. We were led to believe that he was beheaded after teaching his class using a cartoon that had been published in the magazine Charlie Hebdo. I found this event particularly chilling because before coming to this place I too was a history teacher and, just like Mr Paty, I had regularly used contributions from Charlie Hebdo to help my classes. In fact I had used the exact cartoon that Mr Paty had used with his students.
In France and right across Europe there are large populations of disaffected young people, often from migrant communities. Here in Victoria we have done an incredible job over so many years. We are, in my view, the world’s multicultural success story. I think there are many lessons to learn from what has occurred in France, not just this one attack but others this year and in years gone by across Europe. One for me is that we must in Victoria continue to cherish our multicultural communities and our multicultural heritage. I was heartened by the strong reaction of France’s President. It is well and good to affirm our core values as a jurisdiction; it is also necessary, I think, to continue to affirm the fact that we must come together as a people and cherish our multicultural communities.
Movember
Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:17): This month is Movember, an annual event involving the growing of a moustache or engaging in other activities during the month of November to raise awareness of men’s health issues, such as prostate cancer, testicular cancer and men’s suicide. This event also raises funds to assist with game-changing work in men’s mental health, medical research and groundbreaking tests and treatment for prostate cancer and testicular cancer. Globally men die on average six years earlier than women and for reasons that are largely preventable, which means that it does not have to be that way. We can all take action to live healthier, happier and longer lives.
Since 2003 Movember has prompted billions of conversations about men’s health, encouraging men to understand the health risks they face, talk more openly about their health and take action when necessary. These conversations have paved the way for Movember’s ambitious 2030 goals to halve the number of deaths from prostate and testicular cancer, reduce the rate of male suicides by 25 per cent and halve the number of men experiencing serious mental and physical side effects from the treatment of prostate and testicular cancer.
This is the second year that I have taken part in Movember as I attempt to grow a mo for the cause, much to the amusement of many. I have done so because we all have a role to play in raising awareness about these important issues so that our fathers, brothers, sons and partners are not facing a health crisis that is not being talked about and so that they are not dying too young, long before for their time. So please support and participate in Movember efforts, whichever way you can, and support men’s health. We can all make a difference, but we need your help.
Queen Elizabeth Centre
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10:19): The Queen Elizabeth Centre is highly respected for its delivery of early parenting support services. QEC is possibly best known for its sleep school, the residential program that has proven a lifeline for thousands of families experiencing sleepless nights. Where the QEC and services like it make sustainable impact is addressing the underlying issues facing these families. We know that a strong and healthy bond within families reduces the risk of neglect and trauma. Strengthening the bond between parent and child and building the confidence of parents help to improve health and wellbeing. Immediate benefits are reductions in admission of parents in psychological distress or children into hospitals for failure to thrive.
QEC have had to modify their service delivery during the coronavirus pandemic, and 50 per cent of their engagement has been via telehealth. While it is no substitute for face-to-face contact, this combination model has enabled services to outreach more and provide opportunities to keep in touch with vulnerable families. Whilst service providers are united in their view that in-home intensive therapeutic services will help deliver better outcomes and that linking the silos between health, education and justice is integral, telehealth should be considered further as another option of continued support.
Learn Local Awards
Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:20): Victoria’s Learn Local sector provides important skills for people seeking to pursue further vocational study, gain meaningful employment or improve their digital literacy and numeracy skills. The sector will play a major role in Victoria’s economic recovery from the pandemic, helping people who have lost their jobs learn important transferable skills, become job ready and build their confidence. The Andrews Labor government is proud of Victoria’s adult, community and further education sector, which is why we have invested a record level of funding.
Victoria’s Learn Local Awards celebrate and recognise the incredible achievements of the sector. Recently I had the pleasure of virtually announcing one of this year’s finalists, Heyfield Community Resource Centre, whose Kick Start Your Career in the Health Industry program is a finalist in the volunteer team category of the award. The kickstart program assists young people beginning a career in the health sector by improving their financial, digital and workplace skills. This program empowers casual workers to obtain permanent employment and the unemployed to gain meaningful employment. This program, in partnership with the Central Gippsland Health Service and TAFE Gippsland’s skills and jobs centres, also highlights a potential and effective collaboration between Victoria’s Learn Locals, TAFEs and employers. Learn Locals have stepped up during the COVID-19 pandemic and transitioned under difficult circumstances into online learning. Congratulations to Heyfield president Maureen Beha, manager Caroline Trevorrow and the 19 other Learn Local Award finalists, and good luck with the nominations.
Remembrance Day
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:22): I would have preferred to have done this yesterday, but it does not work that way in this place sometimes. I just want to talk about Remembrance Day. I come from a family with a long history of military service, in World War I, World War II, the Malayan emergency and confrontation, and Vietnam. Obviously I myself have not served, but I am very aware of what people and their families go through. There is a saying that you hear, and it is quite true: ‘Some gave all, but all gave some’. Lest we forget.
NAIDOC Week
Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:22): It is a great privilege and honour to rise in this place to acknowledge NAIDOC Week and the theme of ‘Always Was, Always Will Be’. We have so much work to do as a government, as a Parliament and indeed as a nation to acknowledge, respect and recognise the oldest continuous culture on earth. Whilst it is an important part of the calendar to raise awareness, discussion and experience for non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of our communities, the work that we do must extend beyond one week. The work that we do and the commitments that we make must go beyond the celebrations and the events that occur in one week and extend to treaty, extend to the Uluru Statement from the Heart, extend to meaningful discussion on how we can in fact provide self-determination in the most respectful, collaborative and engaging way possible.
United States general election
Ms SHING: On another matter, I wish to make comment on the extraordinarily positive outcomes in the US election, which has seen the most diverse range of candidates elected in the nation’s history. In particular I note that there have been extraordinary results with the first state ever to elect all women of colour to the house in New Mexico; to Sarah McBride, the highest ranking transgender official in US history—it has been a joy to meet her; along with other representatives, Mondaire Jones, Ritchie Torres, Mauree Turner, Cori Bush, Zohran Mamdani, Jenifer Rajkumar and others.
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10:24): The Make-A-Wish Foundation is counting down 35 years of making wishes come true in Australia. The first wish granted was to a 16-year-old boy in Footscray, Shawn Cleland, in April 1986. I have always felt blessed that I grew up with Shawn during my teenage years. He made me laugh, and he was a diehard Bulldogs fan, with this chihuahua on his lap under a woolly blanket at Whitten Oval. He could tell you the stats of every player, and he sat in a prime position next to them as they ran out. Shawn had muscular dystrophy. Told that he would only live until he was 16 years old, Shawn was determined in spades, and he lived another seven years. His wish was to take the first plane trip to watch the Bulldogs play in Sydney. He loved it, apart from the score, and he was treated like a king for the day. The memories from that day and the joy it brought remained strong with Shawn’s family, friends and me. Shawn had a short life, and he inspired others in learning not to take things for granted and to become more caring. All of us who knew Shawn are better people for knowing him.
NAIDOC Week
Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (10:26): This week is NAIDOC Week, as has been acknowledged by a number of other speakers, giving our country the opportunity to celebrate our First Nations people, the oldest living culture on this planet, dating back some 65 000 years. But unfortunately that spirit of celebration was diminished somewhat this week by the members of the Morrison government in the Australian Senate. You see, three Indigenous senators—Senator McCarthy, Senator Dodson and Senator Thorpe, who is a former member of this place—moved a motion to have the national Indigenous flag fly in the Australian Senate during NAIDOC Week, next to the Australian flag. Importantly both of these flags are recognised as national flags under the Flags Act 1953. But the Morrison government just could not bring themselves to show leadership in this area, and they shamefully knocked off the motion. Indeed they even tried to stop Senator McCarthy speaking on the motion. Instead of these sorts of actions, we should be taking every opportunity to display the pride we as a country have in our Indigenous heritage, the oldest living culture in this world. True reconciliation can only happen when this country and its leaders show genuine leadership. This land always was Aboriginal land and always will be.
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:27): I move:
That the consideration of government business, notices of motion, 403 to 409, be postponed until later this day.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Mr JENNINGS:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:28): I rise today to speak in opposition to the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I will speak primarily to the contentious clause in the legislation, clause 49, which removes the prohibition on camping on licensed waterfrontages. I have received an enormous amount of correspondence from constituents who are deeply concerned about this provision, many of whom are farmers who have licensed Crown land waterfrontages for agricultural purposes. Their objections are well founded and indicative of the government’s failure to properly consult rural communities or the agricultural sector on this legislation.
Throughout my time in the Parliament, I have continuously advocated for the opening of state forests and Crown land, and the fact that many camping parks right now are being restricted over this forthcoming Christmas period to many regular campers due to COVID fear is a tragedy in itself. I reminded the house in March this year that public spaces belong to all Victorians, not Parks Victoria, not the government and not the Premier. Where possible we must always ensure that Crown land is accessible to all Victorians. The current Land Act 1958 provides that and appropriately balances it with the needs of farmers, whose properties often border or encompass this land.
Section 401A of the Land Act 1958 provides that on licensed waterfrontages, and I quote:
Any person may, subject to and in accordance with any regulations made for the purposes of this section, enter and remain for recreational purposes on a water frontage … but no person shall camp thereon.
Of course fishers and walkers should be allowed to access licensed waterfrontages for recreational purposes, and the fencing off of these areas by farmers is a repudiation of the licence itself. If they want or need exclusive access, they should obtain a lease of the Crown land rather than a licence. However, removing the prohibition on camping under section 401A, as clause 49 of the bill does, will not solve any of these issues.
Illegally fenced off waterfrontages will not suddenly become open to the public because camping becomes permitted. Instead, law-abiding—which is the vast majority—agricultural enterprises that have licensed these waterfrontages will be substantially burdened by the consequences of camping. As Annetta Paterson of Tongio wrote to me:
I have always been perfectly happy for fishers and walkers to access the river frontage adjacent to my property … and they have always done so without hindrance, however, camping as an entirely different matter?
She went on:
Fishers and walkers pass through quietly and peacefully and by the end of the day they have gone home and the river and surrounds is left to the wildlife, which in large part being nocturnal, can then feed and live their normal lives. The presence of campers will disrupt this.
I agree with Annetta and many others who express the same concerns. Camping has innumerable implications for the wildlife, amenity and environment of the affected land. Camping would lead to camp fires, human waste due to the obvious lack of toilet facilities and rubbish being left behind on the land. This would significantly burden farmers who may have licensed a considerable land mass on waterfrontages but have no enforcement mechanism to ensure campers clean up their own mess.
Camping also poses other risks, because it entails people staying in the area for the duration; a greater chance of trespassing on the land that farmers own, rather than just the licensed area; unrestrained pets chasing and killing livestock; theft of firewood; hooning of off-road vehicles, which can damage agricultural land; illegal fishing or swimming in nearby private dams; and illegal shooting on farmers’ properties. As Belinda Fraser wrote to me:
Much of this happens illegally now, What recourse will land managers have with unknown (or known) campers??
She noted:
There is no way that unknown, poorly regulated campers will be able to resist the temptation to curb their desires to gather, damage, fell, burn, take, remove, light, drive in and on in the absence of considerable monitoring on both licensed crown frontage and adjacent private property.
This is the unfortunate experience of many farmers, which has led to the illegal fencing off of licensed Crown land with signs wrongly claiming it is private property. The legal nuances of a licence versus a lease aside, the farmers that have licensed these waterfrontages manage and use the property for most of the year, raising stock, reducing fuel loads and managing vegetation. To them it is their property because they care for the land and they manage it, often at substantial cost. Mrs Margaret Hansford, who owns a property in north-east Victoria near Omeo, wrote and explained:
With our neighbour and with assistance from a grant from the NE Catchment Management Authority we recently spent approximately $25,000 (over half of this our own funds) fencing the creek frontage to protect it from the grazing animals and revegetating in the area. I am really concerned that this effort will be wasted.
There is also the issue, as I alluded to before, of trespassing on private land. As Alice Colclough, a dairy farmer in north-east Victoria, explained in correspondence to all members of this house:
There is no line on the ground for campers to know where the licensed crown frontage and adjacent private land interface is.
Allowing camping on licensed Crown land makes trespass an inevitability. Farmers should not be further burdened with the cost of having to clearly mark where the licensed land ends and the private land begins.
Even campers themselves see this legislation as plainly problematic. Martha Curry, from Ocean Grove in my electorate, wrote:
I am a camper and a responsible one, but I can see that the burden of policing actions of the broader community in a primitive camping situation where the campers would have to provide all their resources and sanitation will just not work. By all means open these areas to day use, but having people stay at length is a very dangerous situation for the lessee, the environment and the campers themselves.
The state government has ample avenues through which they can enable more camping for fishers, hunters and tourists. As Stewart Day, vice-president of Greta Valley Landcare Group, wrote to all of us:
There are 250 managed camping sites in Victoria’s state forests available for the public to use. 3.1 million hectares of state forest open to the public, and all this land can be used for camping by the public …
Finally, I would like to quote and echo the words of the Victorian Farmers Federation president, David Jochinke, who told the Stock & Land:
Farming land is invaluable and needs to stay just that, not be transformed into a camping spot for some campers who may have little—or even no—knowledge of farms or agriculture.
I would add that biodiversity in this space is also a major issue. I agree totally with David Jochinke.
These changes to the Land Act will only burden farmers and create innumerable unforeseen problems. This legislation, without amendment, is totally unacceptable to farmers, environmentalists and any sensible person who can easily see the problems associated with allowing camping on river areas without protection for the area, livestock and wildlife and without provision for the obvious needs of campers.
I know the opposition will be moving an amendment, and I urge the crossbench to support the opposition’s amendment—even the government should support it. I think we will be moving that it be referred to a committee. But also there may be an amendment which will require campers to obtain permission from the licensee.
There are solutions to this issue, and they should all be investigated. I think it is vitally important that we understand the needs of farmers, who manage this land so diligently. We need to work closely with the agricultural community to ensure we get the right outcome and not rush something like this through with these obvious repercussions.
Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (10:39): It is my pleasure to make my contribution on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This legislation will benefit the state. It will directly impact the magnificent sky, sea and landscape of Victoria. This bill helps in implementing the government’s commitment to protect Victorian natural flora and fauna. In 2018 we committed to make sure that Victoria is the best place for exploring the great outdoors by building new campgrounds, upgrading facilities and tracks and making family holidays more affordable. The bill implements two election commitments, among other changes, by creating a new marine and coastal park—the Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park, committed to in the Victoria’s Great Outdoors election policy—by reserving, under the National Parks Act 1975, land along the Bass Coast; and by providing for camping on licensed riverfrontages, committed to in the fishing and boating election policy, which is achieved by removing the current prohibition on such camping in the Land Act 1958.
Our beautiful landscapes bring billions of dollars to our economy and create many jobs for Victorians. COVID-19 has affected tourism jobs, and now that the restrictions have eased I ask every Victorian to spend their time in the beautiful Victorian landscape. We have invested $105.6 million to deliver better forests, parks, campgrounds, tracks and outdoor facilities. The natural delights of Victoria are waiting. Victoria is home to significant cultural history, built over thousands of years. Through this bill we are delivering very important advancements towards making our great outdoors more appealing to visitors while also making sure that the natural value of the public land estate across Victoria remains protected.
The bill amends several acts relating to Crown land to create new park and reserve areas or alter and correct the boundaries of several existing parks and reserves. The bill also makes some minor amendments, including technical updates and repeals, and alters the boundaries of several other existing parks and reserves. This is common practice for public land legislation. We want everyone to realise the value of vegetation, ecology and the environment. This legislation is testament to our ongoing commitment to protecting and improving our natural environment. The Andrews Labor government is known to support the natural environment.
As I mentioned before, this bill implements a key election commitment by creating a new marine and coastal park, the Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park. This will be delivered by reserving land under the National Parks Act 1975 along the Bass Coast. It is an investment of just under $20 million over four years for the creation of this scenic park. The park will stretch along the highly scenic coast from San Remo to Inverloch. This development is important because we want Victorians today and in the future to enjoy Victorian land and seascapes.
This bill will also provide great opportunities for fishers and campers, as it enables camping on licensed riverfrontages. Nothing is better than camping by a river. Victorian rivers offer beautiful landscapes and riverscapes. This legislation will remove the prohibition on camping on licensed waterfrontages from the Land Act 1958. We recognise that people have been camping on many riverfrontages for many years, and through regulations we will have a better managed system. Through this bill the situation between licensed riverfrontages and unlicensed riverfrontages, state forests and national parks, where camping is not prohibited, will be regularised.
Before this legislation the public was able to lawfully access licensed riverfrontages for fishing, picnics and hikes, but not for camping. I think it is about time camping came onto the list of lawful uses. This will allow clearer and better understanding of the rules. The Victorian Fisheries Authority and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning are working in partnership to develop suitable regulations to support camping at these locations. People have been using the state forests for other recreational purposes, and I think we can extend those rights to include camping on licensed riverfrontages.
We also recognise the crucial role volunteers play in protecting and restoring Victoria’s natural environment. We have provided an environmental volunteering plan to support and nurture volunteers. Victoria has a strong and long history of environmental volunteering. Victorians are all-round giving people. Our volunteers take time out of their busy schedules to support a variety of environmental causes. Through the environmental volunteering plan we are expanding and reinvigorating environmental volunteering for all Victorians. Whether you belong to Landcare, a friends group, Coastcare or simply a local group to improve your local area, all environmental volunteers know that they are supported by this government.
All members must remember how devastating the bushfires were earlier this year. COVID-19 has dominated the conversation recently, but we cannot forget the havoc caused by the bushfires. Like the response towards COVID-19, the Victorian government acted swiftly to address the impact of the fires. We released the first version of the Victoria’s Bushfire Emergency: Biodiversity Response and Recovery report on 23 January. Since then we updated it in August 2020 to include consideration of the full extent and intensity of the fires. We also immediately took action to support Victoria’s bushfire-impacted wildlife and biodiversity, with a $17.5 million funding package announced in January to assist in recovery efforts. We also allocated a further $5 million in August this year to protect rare and threatened species from pests and predators.
I also note that the bill supports the expanded Bendigo Airport by re-reserving certain land used by the airport for aerodrome purposes. This is great news for northern Victoria. It will enable regular passenger flights from Bendigo to Sydney.
The Andrews Labor government has also delivered many other victories for the environment similar to this bill and over $1 billion in a range of measures since being in office. The government has improved the management of our state’s extensive parks network and the services provided to visitors. This includes over $70 million to Parks Victoria and 53 new rangers. We have also delivered a 20-year strategy to protect and improve Victoria’s biodiversity.
Furthermore, we have been able to achieve many significant things for our environment. It is a big, long list of achievements. Camping and recreating in Victorian national and state parks bring in $2.1 billion to our economy annually. These activities also support more than 20 000 jobs across the state. Over $100 million of investment includes upgrading hiking tracks and four-wheel drive tracks, creating 30 new campgrounds, reducing national park camp site fees by 50 per cent and establishing a new marine and coastal park along the Bass Coast. We want Victorians to continue to have access to these beautiful places, and we are making sure that the costs of providing safe, visitor-friendly facilities and services are sustainable and affordable. As the government is easing the coronavirus restrictions, we urge all Victorians to go and spend time in regional Victoria. Families across Victoria and Australia will have access to more camping. This gives them an opportunity to engage with the land, the bush and its biodiversity.
I am proud to be part of a government that cares for the environment and that cares for the Victorian outdoors. Our plans for the environment have to be long-term oriented, and I know that the changes we are making today will impact the future positively. This is a modern bill, and it is making a tangible investment to support our natural environment. This is a great piece of legislation. This bill brings a new park and more options for camping and protects Victorian biodiversity. I commend the bill to the house.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:49): I rise to speak today on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Over the past few weeks many constituents have raised the same question: what does this bill mean in reality? Well, first it is important to note that under the existing legislation the public can currently access licensed riverfrontages for recreational activities such as fishing, picnicking and hiking, but as it stands, this excludes camping. The licences that the bill refers to are Crown frontage licences. Licensees pay $68 for this privileged position, and it enables them to use the Crown land and the riverfrontage for a specified purpose such as grazing. The aim of creating such licences is to improve the water quality, control erosion, improve farm productivity and support the native environment. To be clear, a licence does not remove the public right to enter and remain on this land for approved recreational purposes such as birdwatching and fishing. What this bill proposes is to extend that right and enable camping on licensed Crown land riverfrontages. In summary, this bill is committed to guaranteeing access to fishing and camping on Crown land that has grazing licences and riverfrontage.
In reaching my decision I looked towards the current arrangements in state forests with licence-holders. Currently in state forests where camping is permitted farmers with grazing licences and campers use these areas in harmony. To my knowledge there has never been an issue with this, and I cannot see how extending this to Crown land would result in anything but a win for the public. In reaching this conclusion I acknowledge that people have been illegally camping on Crown land for years. In order to be better able to regulate and manage this it is important that appropriate mechanisms and policies are implemented. I wholeheartedly agree that a thorough public consultation process on the draft regulations is needed, as licensees and local landowners will be affected.
In particular it is essential that proper regulations are put in place to manage the disposal of waste, camp fires and other environmental protections. As a community we have an obligation to promote and engage in good camping behaviour. We understand the effects of bushfires and the impact that littering has on our local wildlife. To mitigate this, the proposed bill will make it an offence to leave camp fires and barbecues unattended on licensed waterfrontages in regulated fire areas, including state forests, protected public land or national parks. In addition, the size of the camp fires and barbecues, as well as the area surrounding them, will be regulated to ensure sensible and safe camping.
Further, to uphold the regulations and to ensure that campers act responsibly, I acknowledge that the fisheries officers, Parks Victoria rangers and authorised officers from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning will and must actively police the behaviours of campers and licence-holders on Crown land. In addition to this, the public will be allowed to report illegal behaviour to a 24-hour hotline. It is clear upon reading this bill that it proposes sufficient policing, management and community consultation to properly implement regulations that consider the impact of camping on locals and licensees on Crown land.
In addition, the bill also provides to create and modify several parks, reserves and conservation areas around Victoria. The creation of the landscape conservation areas will provide necessary protection to our native flora and fauna to better educate local communities on indigenous vegetation and habitat, and Victoria’s natural wildlife landscape conservation areas will be allowed to include dedicated community use and education areas. The creation of the Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park will see several existing parks, reserves and Crown land merged together to better facilitate and manage visitors drawn to our coast. The inclusion of additional visitor facilities will not only boost the local economy but also enable the local community to better enjoy, experience and learn about their local environment.
As has been mentioned, initial and ongoing consultations with the community have been positive and will ensure that this area remains environmentally sustainable for the local wildlife. What is reassuring about the proposed modification and creation of parks, reserves and conservation areas is the inclusion of express instructions on how they are to be managed and regulated. It is important that our native landscapes are preserved and protected from imported flora and fauna. Further, what is particularly important is that proper and sufficient measures are taken to protect our wildlife and their habitat from fire. Victoria’s devastating history with bushfires has taught us that we need to do better to maintain and manage our natural environment. As such, I am pleased to see this has been included in the landscape conservation areas.
In summary, upon reading this bill I believe it proposes sufficient protections, regulations and mechanisms to ensure Crown land parks, reserves and conservation areas are maintained. In addition, it proposes significant benefits for the local wildlife—the indigenous flora and fauna—and enables the local community to enjoy, experience and learn about nature in a safe and regulated format. It is on this basis that I commend this bill to the house.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:55): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on this bill, the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill has been a controversial bill. It does a number of things: the implementation of some commitments made by government relating to Crown land at the Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park enabling camping on certain licensed waterfrontages. I will talk about this at some length.
The bill has become I think controversial, and partially this is the government’s own fault. It has botched the process of consultation with the broad community. It has botched the process by which we are able to assess the impact. I want to put on record the work done by Bridget Vallence, our Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change. She has done enormous work and consultation on these matters. I want to acknowledge too that a number of coalition backbenchers have done a huge amount of work on this bill as well.
The nature of the bill has in itself got a controversial aspect. We are obviously changing rights on lessee land in particular and leaving access to some of our waterfrontages. There is a series of issues that I think are important here. Obviously we want sensible, regulated access to certain lands, but I think it is important that the licence-holders actually do have a say. The coalition has indicated that it will move an amendment which seeks to provide the ability for those licence-holders to be consulted by people before they camp in that area. I think that is very much the way it has worked in fact in any event. This is obviously a set of balancing steps. We obviously want to see properly managed camping of this type. There are issues with the riverine environment, there are environmental issues and there are fire and other issues of litter and so forth that I think are legitimate points that have been raised by many people. The aim I think should be to have reasonable and broad access for people, but it does not seem unreasonable, as the coalition has outlined, for the person who proposes to camp to actually consult the licence-holder. That is the nature of our amendment.
The most contentious clause I am referring to is clause 49, the proposed amendment to the Land Act 1958 that removes the prohibition on camping on licensed waterfrontages. There has been a lot of interest in this. I was fortunate to attend an online briefing by the VFF, and that was I think a very valuable step for city MPs to understand a little more the concerns of the Victorian Farmers Federation and those who do hold licensed land of that type. I might ask for that amendment to be circulated.
Opposition amendment circulated by Mr DAVIS pursuant to standing orders.
Mr DAVIS: Essentially this amendment inserts a new clause following clause 49—49A. New section 401B would be inserted after section 401A of the Land Act 1958, and section 401B would read:
Permission of licensee required to camp on licensed water frontage
A person must not camp on a licensed water frontage unless the person has obtained permission from the licensee.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
The point I would make here is that this is a sensible, fair recognition of the genuine interests of the licence-holder. We accept that this is a balancing matter. We accept that it actually means that the community has got to weigh these different aspects. The government did make some commitments before the election, and I think they have been very slow and very cumbersome in their process of consulting with the agricultural community—those licence-holders who have got a significant interest in ensuring that this operates in a fair way.
I should say that the government provided to the opposition very late yesterday an enormous tranche of additional amendments. This is very late in the piece. I think those amendments seek to expand further camping opportunities, and some of that may be to the good but some of it may not be well explained by government. I indicate that I was partially in the chamber through some of the period of the briefing, but my colleague Bridget Vallence was not; she was obviously in all of that briefing. What was clear to me was that there was some significant confusion in the briefing—different bureaucrats giving different explanations—as to how these would impact.
You have got to ask why the government is bringing these amendments to the chamber. This bill has been around for a long while, as people know. It has actually been there since early in the year. It could have been brought forward very successfully early in the year if they had done the work. The question is: where did these amendments suddenly come from? Why have they been sprung on the Parliament and the community without a proper consultation process?
The government has indicated that there will be a need for further consultation after the bill has passed. They are not intending to proclaim it until September next year, so there is significant time for the government to get this right. Our view is that there should be an opportunity to fully examine these matters. We think that a parliamentary committee, the Environment and Planning Committee, should look at these matters. We think the Environment and Planning Committee is an appropriate place where all of these matters can be looked at, and I suggest that the way forward is in fact to move a reasoned amendment that would allow a referral to the committee. I apologise to the chamber for taking some time to bring this forward, but the truth is that the amendments that were provided to the opposition late yesterday—the briefing was late in the afternoon yesterday—have taken some time to assess. I move:
That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be referred to the Environment and Planning Committee for inquiry, consideration and report, within six months, and the second reading of this bill be deferred until the final report of the committee is presented to the house with recommendations, including the potential impacts of altering the arrangements for camping on Crown land waterfrontages and licensed waterfrontages, and the committee should consider:
(1) the impact on the natural environment;
(2) fire risk/management and other safety hazards;
(3) the impact on native flora and fauna;
(4) the impact on native wildlife;
(5) the impact on biodiversity, biosecurity and water quality;
(6) the impact on waterfrontage licensees and local communities;
(7) the impact of recreational activities, including benefits and disadvantages;
(8) the impact of pollution and contamination of water and land from waste;
(9) potential regulatory models or options if camping were to occur;
(10) particular waterfrontages that should be excluded from camping;
(11) amendments proposed to the bill by the government; and
(12) any other related matters.’.
We think that actually holding some hearings, looking at this closely, will actually get a better outcome. The consultation that the government are proposing to do—and let us be clear here, they want to pass the bill and then they want to consult beyond that in terms of the framework and the regulations that they put in place—they have said they are going to do through until September next year, note September, so there is plenty of time for the Parliament to consider and examine these matters and to come back with a better model.
I do not think the government has got the balance right in this model. I do not think the consideration has been adequate. I do not think the consultation has been adequate. I see Bob Baldwin has come forward and made some comments, and I understand the important advocacy for fishers and those who have genuine recreational pursuits. I have to say I am very, very supportive and very, very keen to see that they get a very fair shake out of these changes.
Equally there are other views, and I note the Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association, the national peak body for livestock and property agents, has come forward and said there are serious concerns from their clients about the boating and camping matters:
Responsible and law-abiding Victorian landholders should have the fundamental right to manage their land without the impediment of those who may not understand nor respect the implications of persons entering upon their land. Concerns are multifaceted and centred predominantly around biosecurity, animal welfare, illegal trespass and the general safety and security of landholders and their families. Specifics around these concerns include littering, dumping, environmental damage, danger to livestock, hunting illegally, inappropriately using firearms or drug paraphernalia resulting in harm, mental stress or bad health to families who are the legal owners or lessees of the land.
While we understand the election commitments to enable people to experience the great outdoors, we urge for serious considerations be given to the landholders and their right to farm.
They support the amendments that we have proposed, and I quote them as just one example. I in no way diminish the objectives of some of the boating, fishing and camping communities who want to see greater opportunities. The bill may well provide those greater opportunities, but it does seem that it has been done in a way that has not been thought through carefully in the way the government ought to have done. For the government to say they are going to consult after the bill is passed, they are going to consult with groups after to see how they are going to regulate this, makes me very concerned. I think we really need to get this right up-front, and that is what our reasoned amendment would achieve. I perhaps ask if that could be circulated. As I say, that would be in the form of a reasoned amendment. It would actually allow for a referral to the Environment and Planning Committee. We think this is an entirely logical and sensible way to go—to make sure that all of these issues are done transparently, publicly, that the opportunity is there for people to put their case to the parliamentary committee for that evidence to be tested. For example, fire authorities may well have views about this that have not been brought forward by government, and we want to see that those fire aspects are dealt with properly. We equally want to make sure that the biodiversity issues are dealt with properly, and we think again a parliamentary committee is a sensible, practical way to do that.
I should indicate that the opposition has, as I said earlier, consulted very, very widely. The list of concerns that have been raised—some of them are the matters that were listed in that correspondence that I just read out, but others relate to the natural environment and wildlife and vegetation too, and we have got to be careful with our riverine environment. We have got to make sure that it has got proper protections to ensure that it is not trampled without proper management. The risks to personal safety of licensees, I think, are potentially significant where it is near a home or a workplace that is frequented. There is obviously the view that there are matters around trees and firewood collection, and that is potentially fine in and of itself if it is done, again, in a regulated way. We do not want to see destruction, though, of any vegetation that would not need to be compromised.
The matter of livestock themselves I think is also an issue. In some cases livestock do come relatively close to the riverine area—to the creek or the river that might be in question here—and we need to make sure that that is properly managed too so that livestock are not disturbed and that licensees have the opportunity to deal with that matter in a sensible and reasonable way. I do want to see, I might say, that there are greater opportunities for fishing and greater opportunities for camping. That I think is one of the objectives, but that has got to be done in a way that respects and manages the legitimate interests of the licensees. It is a balance that has got to be struck in a careful way. I do not think the government have quite got this balance right, and part of the reason for that is that I do not think they have consulted properly. I do not think they have talked to all the groups, and I know that, as Ms Vallence in the Assembly has moved around talking to many of the farming groups, this has come as a surprise to many of them.
I know that also Landcare groups have become very active on this matter. I have had correspondence and my colleagues have had correspondence from very well intentioned local Landcare groups that recognise that farmers and other local community members have actually got a responsibility to look after their environment—to actually replant, to revegetate, to stabilise the banks of local creeks to prevent erosion and to do that in a very systematic way—and I pay tribute to the work of many of those Landcare groups. They have begun to realise what this may mean if it is not properly managed and properly regulated. They have begun to realise that in fact there may be unintended consequences in terms of some destruction of riverbanks and some destruction of the environment in that area.
So let us get a way forward here. Let us get a way forward that actually sensibly balances all of these interests. Let us get a way forward that actually ensures that there can be more camping and wider camping and that it is done in a managed and sensible way that does respect the legitimate interests of the licence-holders. I do, as I say, recognise that there are many in the community who would say, ‘Well, let’s just let this rip’. I think that that is not quite the right balance to be struck here. I think we have got to be a little bit more sophisticated on this matter. I think we have got to look at ways, as I say, to widen the opportunities for campers and fishers in a managed way and to do that in a way that actually respects the environment. There are those in the Indigenous community who have views on this too, and this parliamentary inquiry will also offer a way forward for them to be able to speak.
So we say that on the important objectives the government has not consulted properly or widely enough, and the flood of emails that members’ offices will have been receiving in recent days is a clear indication that it is a shock and a surprise amongst many. I think that the Landcare groups that have corresponded with me and others over the last few days have woken up to this, and they have said, ‘Oh my goodness, we were not told about these matters, we were not consulted on these matters, we were not asked our views and we were not asked if this will interfere with the tasks that we are trying to do to rehabilitate land, to protect land and to husband the land to make sure that into the future we can all enjoy that land’. That is the licensees, it is the neighbouring community and it is tourists and those from outside who want to enjoy the opportunity to camp in our great environment.
I want to say something about the government’s house amendments, which as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, we have not seen yet, because the government has brought this on with a very late rush. As I say, the briefing was late yesterday. Maybe Minister Leane, when the committee starts, would be as good as to explain to the chamber why the government has brought forward these big changes, of the house amendments, at this point—why the government did not have those as part of the bill earlier or why the government did not seek to involve the community and the Parliament earlier with these house amendments. They are not trivial. We are not talking about a dot on an i or a tweak here or a tweak there. There is a significant tranche of them, and they do actually alter rights and balances, or arrangements, significantly on government land. We support more sensible access to government land, but again, it is hard to assess the full impact of the set of amendments. As I say, there was even contradictory information inside the actual briefing—the distances and how that will apply. We will have some questions for the minister about that in committee, because we think that that is the right way to ask him to flesh out the details of those changes that are proposed in the house amendments. He might want to speak to those up-front.
Ms Taylor interjected.
Mr DAVIS: No, we do not have them there. They have not yet been circulated. That, Ms Taylor, just underlines the point—that we are debating a bill with a significant tranche of house amendments that are not yet even in the chamber. We would certainly give leave for the government to put them in the chamber now so that everyone could see them. We think that would be a fair step.
In conclusion, I reiterate, we see a sensible way forward. The logical step would be for this to go to the Environment and Planning Committee for an inquiry that would cover all of these matters and allow a sensible balance to be struck. The government has said that it is consulting through until September next year. So there is no time delay at all. And the opportunity is there for all who have got views on this to put their case. As I say, the balance that has got to be struck is to practically open up some areas but to do that in a way that protects those objectives—the environmental objectives, the safety objectives, particularly around fire, and the objectives that we would want to see to make sure that licence-holders are able to have a say in this as well. So we will move, at the end of the second reading, to refer this to the Environment and Planning Committee. If that is unsuccessful, we will move our amendment, as I have outlined, which will provide a requirement for the permission of the licensees.
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:19): It gives me great pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, because I love boating, camping and fishing. I am glad Mr Bourman is in the chamber, because I am going to talk a little bit about my boating, camping and fishing experiences as a young person. I have had plenty of them, and I still love to fish. I think it was not last year but the year before that I was trying to teach my then 13-year-old daughter how to cast a line. We were standing at the end of a pier, and it was hilarious, because the—
Mr Bourman: Maybe you can teach me.
Ms TERPSTRA: I would love to teach you, Mr Bourman, how to cast a line. I know how to bait a hook and I know how to cast a line and I know how to catch a fish, and I love it. It is something I have not done for a while, but it sort of goes back to my childhood of growing up in a beach kind of area and being able to swim. I also remember being able to swim out from the beach to a boat that was more like a crate on water, but it was something that we would do. We would swim out to that boat, we would fish off that boat and we would catch fish and of course swim back and bring them back. They are fantastic memories. I thoroughly understand that the Andrews Labor government would make these commitments to Victorians, because boating, camping and fishing is good fun. And I thought we were going to have an easy day today, but we have got some trickiness here in the chamber already—but, you know, par for the course apparently this week.
What I can say is having seen the opposition’s amendment—I will talk about that in a moment—of course the government opposes that amendment and also further opposes, as foreshadowed by the opposition, the referral of this legislation to the Environment and Planning Committee for an inquiry. I would just turn to what this bill actually does, because I think there is some confusion in the chamber about what this bill actually does. I listened to the contributions from my colleagues Ms Vaghela and of course Mr Barton, and they very aptly summarised what this bill does. I will not go on and repeat all of that, because I think it is pretty clear for the record, but I just will underscore these things. For the opposition to say this is out of the blue—I mean, this is an election commitment from 2018. It has been out there for two years now, so why it has come as a surprise I do not know. The legislation provides greater opportunities for fishers and campers to explore Victoria’s many beautiful landscapes by enabling camping along licensed riverfrontages across Victoria, which is part of the government’s 2018 fishing and boating election commitments. Okay, so it has been out there for a while.
This bill seeks to remove the prohibition on camping on licensed waterfrontages from the Land Act 1958. It recognises that this activity has been occurring on many of these frontages for many years and allows for it to be better managed through regulation. This also regularises the situation between licensed riverfrontages, where camping is currently prohibited, and unlicensed riverfrontages, state forests and national parks. Effectively, this is it in a nutshell. The public is already able to lawfully access licensed riverfrontages for recreation such as fishing, picnicking and hiking, but just not camping. So these things already happen, just not with camping. Now, it is not to say that camping is not happening, because we know that people are camping on these lands, but what these amendments do—or what the changes to the act will do—is actually harmonise the legal framework so that people can do these activities in a more consistent manner.
The public currently camp in state forests in harmony with farmers who have grazing licences—so again this is about when people have licences over Crown land. The concern would be—and I will talk about this in a minute—that should the opposition amendment get up, it would say a person must not camp on a licensed waterfrontage unless the person has obtained permission from the licensee. That prohibits people’s access to Crown land, which they already have, and it would seek to give another set of rights to licensees who have had licences approved. It is kind of a little bit unfair to say, ‘Guess what, you gratis get some more rights’. That is why the government opposes this amendment as proposed by the opposition.
As I said, these activities are already happening now and people are able to fish, picnic, hike and camp. They already do it now. I am sure Mr Bourman would agree with me that most boating, fishing and camping folk are good folk. They are responsible folk. He is agreeing with me—Mr Bourman, yes? Of course he is. I cannot see around the pillar there. But because these things already happen and people who want to enjoy the great outdoors actually are responsible people, they look after their environment, they clean up after themselves and they extinguish their camp fires and make sure they put them out. So to suggest that harmonising the legislation that applies or improving the regulatory framework would somehow upset or cause a catastrophe I just think is hysterical.
And finally, a licence is not a lease. It is a different set of rights. It does not give a licensee exclusive use of Crown land. Members of the public already have the right to enter and remain on the land for certain recreational purposes, as I said earlier, including walking, fishing or birdwatching. This legislation simply extends those rights to include the right to camp on licensed riverfrontages subject to the regulations.
Again, this is ill conceived. I am disappointed to hear Mr Davis say this has all come as a surprise. It is not a surprise. It was an election commitment. It has been out there for two years. It is nothing new, and as I said, this is about harmonising the regulatory environment.
In regard to the committee referral, I will remind Mr Davis, as I am the incoming chair of the Environment and Planning Committee, that this referral seems to me to be something that—as I said, the government opposes this referral—the Environment and Planning Committee is already dealing with in an inquiry that is going to look at ecosystems. Much of what you are proposing is already on the table to be reviewed. So in saying that we oppose this referral—
Mr Davis interjected.
Ms TERPSTRA: No, because I am looking at it here. You are talking about the impact on native flora and fauna; the impact on wildlife; the impact on biodiversity, biosecurity and water quality; the impact of pollution and contamination of water—all of those things. They are all things that impact ecosystems, and the committee is already looking into those things and will hopefully commence the inquiry or its first hearings into that matter very shortly. So it would be a duplication of the work that that committee is already going to begin to undertake and continue on into next year.
Like I said, I reflect back on my old childhood of being able to swim out to a rubbish old boat that we were lucky did not sink when we were on it. It was good fun though as a kid. I can remember we were scared and laughing all at the same time down at Burraneer Bay or Gunnamatta Bay in the shire. There you go—I will expose the fact that I am a shire expat. But they are wonderful memories, and there was fishing and learning to fish, catching your own food. You would cook the fish if you could, unless you had to throw them back; you would always get a few ‘toads’ as they were called. You know, the things that you would catch and then they would blow up. They are no good; you have to send them back. But we would catch bream, some leatherjacket sometimes, and it was good. Like I said earlier, I learned how to cast a line. With my daughter it was hilarious. I was showing her how to cast a line and she had a go at casting the rod, and of course the tip of the rod came off and went into the water. I am sure many people who have learned to cast a line would have had very similar experiences, or they have thrown their line out and accidentally let go of the reel as well and then it is all gone. Sadly, those sorts of things do happen when you go fishing and camping as well.
Many of the people that I know go camping, and I have got a friend who goes camping every year. I will look at some fantastic photos on Facebook of them just sitting around working pretty hard at relaxing on a riverfrontage, and it looks pretty damn fine to me if I must say so myself. I know they are responsible people. They enjoy the environment. They enjoy the natural environment. They get out on their kayaks. They kayak up and down the river, and when they leave, they take their rubbish with them. They make sure they extinguish any camp fires that they have used, and they use any barbecues in a responsible manner as well. As someone who lives in Victoria now, I have been camping down at Rye. Although it was cold, it was good fun. I do look for places to which you can take your dog, because you have got to take the whole family when you go camping; you cannot leave the dog behind. But of course you cannot have your dog in national parks. That is a no-no. There are some places where you can take dogs, so I look for those places as well.
So you have got to take your family, and it is all good fun. The dog gets out on the kayak or the paddleboard with me as well. That is great, and they are wonderful experiences for Victorians to have, as well as children experiencing the outdoors, learning how to play and being away from screens and the TV and all of that sort of stuff. It is fantastic, and I would like to think that other Victorian families and their children can have the same experiences. We used to do all manner of things. I remember, when we were camping, kids running around the park that we were camping in going absolutely bananas but having a whale of a time without a phone in their hand or near a TV. It is wonderful. Climbing trees, all that sort of stuff—fantastic.
These laws are not radically changing things. It is just a way of harmonising things. People are already doing these things in an informal way. They are already sharing the natural environment that exists. Like I said, for the farmers or whoever has licenses over Crown land, to suggest that because they have a licence they can therefore exclude the public access to Crown land is not fair or reasonable as well. It is not a lease; like I said, these licences are different and confer different rights on landholders. And as I said, people have been able for some time to very well manage their competing interests. Like I said, there are people who are already doing these things, so it is just to harmonise that.
We talked about people accessing natural assets. The bill is specifically relevant to the electorates of Bass, which is in the location of the new marine coastal park, which is fantastic; Monbulk, with interest group support in the creation of the Yellingbo Landscape Conservation Area and the connection to the Alpine School; and Bendigo East, with the amendments to support the Bendigo Airport. So more broadly the bill is also relevant to all electorates by delivering election commitments and getting on with the job of delivering improvements to the public land estate as expected by government. The bill delivers significant advancements to support people to enjoy the great outdoors, as I said, while protecting the natural values that we are so proud of.
I might leave my contribution there, but I just encourage everyone in this chamber to support the bill but oppose the amendments and the committee referral. As I said, the committee is already doing some substantial work in reviewing ecosystems. This referral would just be a duplication and unnecessary work for that committee. As I said, the amendment we oppose because it would confer a new set of rights on licence-holders and would in fact preclude people from accessing Crown land, and that is something that is unfair and unreasonable. So with that, I commend the bill to the house but oppose the amendment and the committee referral.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:32): I am going to start my contribution with a principle: public land is for the public. I had a whole lot of notes written out for this, and unfortunately from listening to some of the contributions I have got a little confused. I am quite confused as to how this is controversial, particularly to the coalition. Back on Wednesday, 27 November 2019, when it went through the Assembly, I do believe this was Mr Morris:
Essentially the way the licences operate at the moment is that the licensee is able to enter and use the land for a particular purpose which is specified in the licence, but the licence does not give that licensee exclusive …
access to the land. So that is recognising that point. And we move a little bit further on in Mr Morris’s speech:
I emphasise those points because I think the change itself is not unreasonable but it is very, very important that it be managed so that it is successful.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is not something that we want to just pop out there and leave to happen. Regulations are a must, and I am actually quite pleased the government have changed the date to nearly a year in advance. Then we get down to mapping, key sites and things like that—again Mr Morris:
… but I would suggest a significant portion—is private land. If people think that they are able to access that private land simply because it abuts a stream and camp on that land, that will clearly not be agreeable to the owners.
And that is clear. This does not apply. In fact—and I will get to the government amendment soon—the reason those amendments came about is I have been working with the government trying to get them to clarify the situation.
I have had a whole heap of calls and emails from a lot of very upset farmers. And when I talk through what the actual situation is, so far to date I think I have had one where I am not entirely sure but they have all not been affected by this legislation. There has been an extremely irresponsible misinformation campaign by what used to be a good newspaper. I have had people say they have read it in the Orange Comic that they will be able to have duck shooters on the place, and I am going, ‘Well, no’. I have not read the articles in question, so I am not actually going to say that is the case, but what they said to me was that, and I said, ‘No. This bill does not allow anyone to do anything that they aren’t already doing, except camping. There is nothing new. There is no more hunting, there is no more fishing, there is no more four-wheel driving, no more hiking—just camping’.
Just to finish off regarding part of Mr Morris’s contribution:
… so I simply want to flag that and say that needs to be done and it needs to be done sooner rather than later so that when the new arrangements come into operation any conflict, and hopefully there will be none, is absolutely minimised.
Again I am 100 per cent on top of that. We will move to Mr Tim Bull in the other place. The same date:
The first relates to the bill’s removing of the ban on camping on licensed water frontages. I do not have a problem with this. I think it is a good idea. It gets more families outside, spending time together, so I am certainly not in any way, shape or form opposed to that proposition. But it is going to require a significant amount more detail than what is outlined in the bill.
Absolutely. So far I am not seeing anything that is really controversial. There is Ms McLeish from the other place on Wednesday, 27 November 2019. I wholeheartedly concur with what she says here:
We would like answers, and I would really like to think that in the committee stage in the upper house we can get a lot of answers to these questions and have some concerns allayed somewhat.
Well, yes—absolutely. I am at a loss as to how somewhere between Wednesday, 27 November 2019, and now it has suddenly become such a massive problem for the coalition and some newspapers that they are scaring people who in most cases will not see any change themselves through this and, in the cases where they will, they can deal with the regulations. We have a lot of time, and I have got to say the government—I do not like saying nice things about governments—have been working pretty well with me on this and have been very cognisant of the issues that we are facing.
I do have a small amendment, which is a note, and I would like that circulated.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party amendment circulated by Mr BOURMAN pursuant to standing orders.
Mr BOURMAN: Now, I will say with regard to the government’s new amendments, which we got last night, as opposed to the opposition’s new amendment, which we got at 10.40 today, my amendment is probably not as necessary, but I would still push through with it. It is a note. It says:
Licensed water frontage land does not include certain Crown land, including leased Crown land, or freehold land …
What that means is that this change to camping does not affect people’s freehold land or leased Crown land. I note that Mr Davis, whether by design or accident I cannot be sure, used the word ‘lessee’ a lot. If you lease a bit of land, you have effectively the same rights as if it were freehold, give or take, which means you can say who can and cannot go across that land from day one. That will not change. Freehold land—you are allowed, subject to any existing easements, to tell people to get off your land if they are camping, passing through or doing anything. That will not change. So again I am quite confused as to where the hell this has come from. It is scaring a lot of good people and a lot of Landcare people who just will not be affected by this.
The coalition’s amendment requiring the permission of the licence-holder to camp—this is channelling the Greens in a monumental fashion because what it is going to do is effectively lock people out of public land. The reason I say that is that if I am a licensee and I have people saying, ‘I want to camp on your land’ and I do not know them, guess what I am going to say? No, absolutely not. So, as I said, I am just confused. How are people going to get the contact details of the licence-holders? There is a registry of licence-holders. Is it going to be public? Can the farmers opt out? What we are doing is giving people like Aussie Farms, the animal activist clowns, an actual database of people to go to and just copy down.
Also, quite unfortunately, it makes the licensees the police. They have to police who comes onto the land that they do not own. It is just nuts, and I will not be supporting that. It is blowing my mind that it has come to this point. Mr Davis mentioned at length that he has an issue with the passing of the bill and then doing the regulations. My understanding of it is—and I have been here a while, but I am still hardly an expert; every day you learn something new—isn’t that how it works? You can create the regulations before you pass the bill, of course, but you cannot actually enforce them until the bill is enacted, and we have got until September next year. Mr Davis used the term ‘responsible and law-abiding landholders’. Landholders will not be affected by this. The people who will be affected by this—it is not their land. They have a licence to perform an activity.
Ms Lovell: There are adjoining landholders to the lease—
Mr BOURMAN: Yes, but the people still will not be able to cross their land regardless; this is the point. Trespass is trespass, even though it is not technically trespass. The bill we are discussing, and clause 49, does not change anything except allowing people to camp. It will be 10 penalty units or $1652 for illegally camping. That is actually half the penalty units for trespassing.
I am going to get onto Mr Davis’s referral to a committee. Obviously I am not going to support that. We got that at 10.40 am today. We talk about the tranche of amendments we got yesterday, that we had overnight to read, and yet we get this at 10.40 am today for something that substantially duplicates what the Environment and Planning Committee is actually doing.
The amendments from the government, yes, were a bit late, but I was quite pleased to see that they sort out a lot of stuff. One of the things I like is that ‘regulated watercourse land’ means ‘Crown land within 200 metres of the bank of a watercourse’—yadda, yadda, yadda. That means that if it is not 200 metres—and my understanding of most of the watercourse frontages is that they are around 20 to 40 metres—basically it will not affect anyone except campers.
Obviously it is very important and incumbent on the government to make a good set of regulations. I have been pointing everyone that I have talked to to engage.vic.gov.au, and I actually encourage everyone that is watching this. If they want to see the regulations, that is how they get to them. I just do not know how this went from the lower house, where it was ‘It’s not a bad idea; it needs good regulations’, to now, where all of a sudden we have got a full-blown campaign. I am going to finish my contribution with two points: one, long after the misinformation campaign has gone, the misinformation stays; and, two, public land is for the public.
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:43): I rise to speak on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. It is interesting to listen to some other people’s perceptions of what this bill will do. I am going to confine my contribution just to the part about removing the prohibition on camping on public land.
We heard from Ms Terpstra all about her ‘BCFing fun’ as a child. As a child I used to do things that I thought were fun too that would no longer be appropriate. My father managed the refinery at Altona. I can remember going to work with him in a summer dress, a little cotton dress, with thongs on and riding around the refinery on the back of his motorcycle. That would no longer be appropriate or tolerated under OH&S. Later on, when he moved on and managed the McKenzie and Holland factory in South Kingsville—they made all of the traffic lights and signalling lights for the railways and also the boom gates—we used to love to go to work with him because the guys in the factory would put us on the boom gates as they tested them and we would ride them up and down. It was great fun. They are great childhood memories, but they are not appropriate, and particularly in this day they would not be tolerated under OH&S. No child would be allowed on the refinery site or on the floor of a factory, let alone riding up and down on the boom gates while they tested them. Ms Terpstra’s lack of real experience in land management and in environmental issues and biodiversity is exactly why this bill should not pass in its current form but why members of this place should actually support the coalition’s amendments.
This is about the concerns of many of my constituents about what is going to happen on their farms, and I truly believe that the real recreational and responsible fishers and shooters will not have any problem in actually gaining permission from landholders to camp on their licensed areas. Many of the farmers that have written to me have said, ‘We don’t stop people. We’re happy for people to camp on our licensed areas, provided we know they’re there’, because then they can go down, they can check on them and they can check that fires have been put out when they leave. It is a friendly arrangement between the landholder and the campers where they have some interaction, and the campers actually appreciate that too. But what we want to stop is people coming up and emulating the four-wheel drive commercials in pristine waterways. We all know that it looks great fun when you see a TV ad for a four-wheel drive that is fording a river—great fun but not appropriate, because that will do enormous damage to the banks and to our environment. Equally, with the people camping leaving campfires alight, tremendous damage can be done to our environment, and there are also the subjects of human waste and other problems, rubbish et cetera being left in those areas, which will happen, because we see it happen even in the genuine camping areas.
Now, I have had a number of constituents who have written to me on this issue, but I am just going to quote from a few of those constituents. This particular constituent actually had his lawyer write to members of Parliament. He is certainly not opposed to people being able to camp on the licensed area, but he said that:
In relation to the commencement provisions within the Bill—
this is the letter from the solicitor, of course—
our client submits that it is inappropriate for the Act to commence prior to the gazettal of the regulations, particularly where the regulations are critical to the management of camping activities along waterways. A commencement date of 1 December 2020 does not provide sufficient time to allow the regulations to be drafted, let alone to consult with affected licence holders, Landcare groups, the CFA, Council and other stakeholders.
Our client submits that this commencement date identified within the Bill should be delayed in part, until after the regulations to manage camping and access to waterway frontages has been drafted and gazetted. It is open to Parliament to amend the Bill and carve out a commencement date specifically for section … of the Bill.
Our client submits that the benefit in delaying the removal of the prohibition on camping along waterway frontages until after the regulations are gazetted, is that it will allow issues to be properly considered and appropriate mechanisms put in place to protect fragile waterways, including matters associated with:
• vehicle access to waterway frontages and the potential damage to both waterways and private land;
• using trail bikes along waterways that results in the destruction of the river bank;
• car parking, where cars are parked along one-way road verges that obstruct traffic and/or where the heat from car exhausts ignites a grass fire on the road verge that then turns into a bushfire;
• increased risk of bushfire, where campers do not properly extinguish fires;
• the intensification of seasonal campers in areas of high bushfire risk;
• the management of human waste at campsites along waterways, as both an amenity and a pollution issue;
• illegal gathering of firewood and the use of chainsaws to clear fallen timber;
• management of animals, i.e. hunting dogs at campsites and the effect on grazing cattle and native animals;
• flora and fauna biohazard risk and adverse impacts on native regeneration areas;
• management of general waste and rubbish that is discarded at the campsites;
• intentional or unintentional trespass on private land; and
• policing and enforcement of the regulations by authorised officers.
I think that that is a sensible thing—to delay any progress on this bill until we do know what the regulations look like—and that is why I would encourage people to support the coalition’s reasoned amendment that calls for all the words after ‘that’ to be omitted and replaced with the words that are in that amendment, which calls for a parliamentary Environment and Planning Committee inquiry for consideration of the effects of this camping on the waterfrontages.
One of my landholders up near Omeo wrote to me, and she said that she is primarily concerned about the fragile ecosystem of the creek on their property but also about damage to and theft from the property. She submits that unregulated camping risks significant damage to the ecosystem, and she says she and her neighbour, with the assistance of a grant from North East Catchment Management Authority, have recently spent $25 000, half of which was their own funds, fencing the creek frontage to protect it from grazing animals and revegetating the area. She is really concerned that this effort will now be wasted and that there will be risks to the environment that include:
1. Pollution from litter and human waste
2. Damage to fragile ecosystems and new vegetation
3. Illegal collection of firewood from the creek and the remaining native vegetation on our land, removing native habitats
4. Damage to fences and the new plantings.
She also says that their property is at risk from theft and also from illegal shooting, leaving farm gates open and disturbing the stock as well as native wildlife. She says she is really supportive of camping and she is a camper herself:
… but this should only be where there is established infrastructure including the availability of toilets and potable water in areas where the environment will not be negatively affected. Perhaps more camping grounds need to be established?
There have been a lot of farmers in my area that have also raised concerns around the damage that will be done to wildlife but in particular to the platypus population in our rivers. As we all know, they are very delicate and very shy animals. There is nothing more pleasurable than having a platypus in the creek or in the river near your property. I know this because I have had them at the back of my own home.
Members interjecting.
Ms LOVELL: Well, as Mr Finn says, perhaps the only thing more pleasurable is a Richmond premiership. But this letter that I am going to quote from now is from Oscar Day, and he is a young firefighter at Moyhu. He says:
I am an 18 year old volunteer fire fighter.
I am frightened beyond words to tell you about our nightmare summer of 2020 when I fought the Abbeyard fire in north east Victoria, which came within 20kms of my home.
The mere idea that this bill amendment will allow more people to light more fires in unsupervised areas is criminal.
My family have a creek side licence within sight of our house—but this makes us unusual. Most waterfront is not within sight or regular inspection of a suitable adult. Are you going to let people light fires?
… please don’t do it.
I never want to fight a fire like this summer’s again.
That is from young Oscar Day, an 18-year-old firefighter. I want to finish by quoting from a letter from Ian Howley. Ian, in his letter, says:
By way of background I worked for 40+ years in the rural water industry and spent a lot of time on managing illegal camping around inland water storages and along river frontages. Problems encountered included many illegal campfires during the fire danger periods, four wheel drives and dirt bikes ripping up river banks and storage foreshore areas, rubbish and human waste littered all over the place, including in the waterways, loud music and other noises that affected nearby permanent residents and destruction of assets such as fences. When approached by officers of the water authority (that I worked for) the campers, often including groups of hoons who were drunk and sometimes armed (and nowadays on drugs), often with a pack of killer dogs, the officer would have to retreat for his own safety. Many of these incidents occurred many kilometres away from a manned police station.
This proposed bill will give these problem campers the opportunity to create havoc over much of our precious foreshore and river frontage land. This is a ridiculous move given that the Victorian Government has programs to protect thousands of kilometres of damaged river frontage land.
In retirement I now live adjacent to State forest land and near the Alpine National Park. I am witness to groups of vehicles heading into the “bush” where they can rip up the roads and cause damage to our waterways—they try to emulate the advertisements for 4wd’s where vehicles are shown driving through waterways.
I have spent hundreds of hours over the past decade on a Landcare project to restore about a kilometre of frontage land beside the East Kiewa River. Our early efforts were damaged by city campers coming in groups over the public holidays. To protect the revegetation of this area we had to fence the campers out. Even then they wrecked the fence on three occasions before they got the message.
I have lived most of my life involved in the care of our waterways and, based on over 50 years of experience, I can assure you that this change to the camping rules will lead to much destruction of our river and lake frontages.
Maybe this is a bill to win favours with the Shooters and Fishers Party. If so I urge you to think again. Our farmers deserve better than this.
Our farmers deserve better than this. The Shooters and Fishers party should remember that their party is not just the Shooters and Fishers party; it is the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. They should be considering the wishes of the farmers, which is to have better regulation over camping, not to have a free-for-all on camping but to allow camping with the permission of the licensee and to work together with those farmers to make sure that we get good outcomes for people who are wanting to enjoy our natural environment, wanting to camp, wanting to fish or wanting to shoot in those areas but who are doing it in a responsible manner and who are not just there to destroy our natural environment.
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:58): I am not going to start my speech now, with 1 minute to go, so I will just stand here for a little bit. We can get back to it after lunch.
Mr Ondarchie: This is the briefest you have ever been.
Mr QUILTY: I will speak a bit longer after lunch.
The PRESIDENT: Mr Quilty, I will call you after question time, but your time has been recorded, unfortunately.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
COVID-19
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:59): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, I have become aware of the circumstances of a couple planning to be married in Victoria in about a month’s time which directly highlight the confusing and unworkable rules imposed on wedding venues, many of which are small businesses. The couple point out that their venue was advised that based on the latest road map, 23 November, while 100 people would be allowed at a wedding, only 40 are allowed at the reception immediately following the ceremony. A wedding venue informed the opposition yesterday they were told by Business Victoria to follow the hospitality guidelines, which is 40 inside and 70 outside, despite many businesses and couples having already locked in events for about 100 people. So I therefore ask: Minister, have you had contact with small businesses in the wedding industry that have been impacted by Business Victoria’s advice that the effective limit for weddings remains just 40 people?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:00): I thank Mr Davis for his question. Let me start my answer by wishing the happy couple all the very best on the big life event upon which they are about to embark. Of course we all know there is much more to a marriage than a wedding day, but a wedding day is a very, very special milestone in people’s lives.
Mr Davis has described the most recent arrangements for weddings in the road map, and the latest update to the road map was announced on Sunday. The extension of wedding attendance to 100 came into place on Monday, so I am not sure how many venues have been booked with the larger number permitted in that period of three days, but I have no doubt that there will be people who have been waiting and waiting for an expansion in guest numbers for their happy and special occasion. Mr Davis correctly described the arrangements for weddings, and particularly for dining, that apply to the hospitality industry. His question specifically was whether or not I have been contacted by wedding organisers, wedding venues and the like, and to the best of my knowledge I have not.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): As the minister correctly identified, you cannot plan a wedding in a day. Minister, the fact is there will be a lot of very angry couples and businesses when they discover that their planned weddings are in effect limited to just 40 people, and I therefore ask: will you, on behalf of these small and medium businesses in the wedding venue sector, ensure that there is a fair and safe opening possible at a much greater number than the absurd, confused restrictions proposed by your government?
Ms Symes interjected.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:03): I thank Mr Davis for his supplementary question. I think for the record I feel that I must take up Minister Symes’s interjection about ‘in Vegas they can’, just because it was such a great quip. We are asking all Victorians to continue to follow the rules that are outlined in the road map, whether they are planning weddings or other events or whether they are in businesses that are now very much in the process of reopening and beginning their recovery. Mr Davis knows well the process by which the road map and restrictions are changed and modified. As all members would be aware, the last step commences from midnight on 22 November, and then the step after that is COVID normal. The government will be able to outline to the business community and to all others what those arrangements are at what I hope will be an early opportunity.
Land rezoning
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:04): My question is to the minister representing the Premier. The ongoing IBAC inquiry into Casey council is continuing to provide the public with evidence of how dodgy land deals are set up in this state by meetings between developers, lobbyists, councillors and MPs. At the heart of the alleged corrupt activities being investigated at IBAC is the rezoning of land. A simple swipe of a pen, and a minister or council can make a property developer very rich. So as well as the need to ban political donations from property developers, there is another simple mechanism the government could introduce in the upcoming budget to remove the incentive for corruption—that is, a land rezoning tax. Minister, my question is: will the government stand up to the corrupting influences of property developers by introducing a land rezoning tax?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:05): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question in relation to land rezoning taxes, and I will get her a written response to the issues that she has raised.
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:05): Thank you, Minister, for passing the question on for an answer. I further ask: given a rezoning tax will, along with preventing corruption, also raise revenue on unearned wealth at a time when we are all hoping for a big-spending budget, can the minister confirm whether a rezoning tax or other value capture mechanisms have been considered for inclusion in the upcoming budget as additional revenue measures?
The PRESIDENT: Dr Ratnam, you might have to rephrase your question, because your first question and the supplementary were completely different. I ask you to rephrase your supplementary.
Dr RATNAM: Sorry, President, I am not quite sure why. My substantive question was asking whether a land rezoning tax would be introduced in the budget, and I am asking in my supplementary question whether a rezoning tax or other value capture mechanisms have been considered, so they are very related.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, it is your call.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:06): I will pass it on as well. I think there are some problems with the question in asking for cabinet deliberations, but in terms of the member’s question in relation to consideration of these matters, I will see if we can obtain further information.
Ministers statements: Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:07): I rise today to update the house on the Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Australia’s universities. That is why in May the Treasurer and I established a $350 million higher education state investment fund and committed to payroll tax deferrals valued at around $110 million. Universities have been advised of their minimum allocation under the investment fund. This was determined by the size of their student bodies, with an equity adjustment for the level of disadvantage within each student body. There is also a pool of funds that universities can apply for on a competitive basis.
A project control group headed by a former departmental secretary has been working with the universities in recent months on co-designing a range of exciting projects that will provide opportunities for research and infrastructure and of course the jobs associated with those projects. I look forward to updating you on the many projects we will invest in over the course of the next year.
Victoria has led the country, stepping up to support universities at a difficult time, but as we have always said, the federal government has the funding responsibility for Victoria’s universities. We will not stand for cost-shifting by the federal coalition. All of us on this side are deeply concerned at the scale of job loss across universities—job loss that was avoidable if the federal government had backed our universities. A proper injection of funding to our universities would save jobs and increase student places at a time when we need more people skilling up for jobs. Our universities deserve better.
Casey planning
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:08): My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, have you attended any function, including intimate meals and including any Progressive Business briefings, where the corrupt John Woodman or the corrupt Philip Staindl were present since you became a minister, and if so, were any departmental note takers in attendance?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:09): I thank Mr Davis for his question. If I could just make a general observation that I think is important, there is an important inquiry underway and it needs to be able to do its work, so I will not be providing a long commentary. As I have indicated to the house on previous occasions, I have not met with Mr Woodman. I certainly would not describe it as an intimate dinner, but I have met with Mr Staindl on the matter of scallop fisheries.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:10): Minister, the point here is that you have not answered the question about the departmental note takers, and you may want to address that in the supplementary response. But I therefore ask, given your response: is the scallop meeting, or the fishing meeting, with Mr Staindl the only occasion that you have met with him?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:10): Again I thank Mr Davis for his further question. I have certainly known Mr Staindl for many years. I certainly have not met with him for a number of years, and his representations on behalf of one of our commercial fishing licence holders would have been in the order of three or more years ago.
Ms Crozier: So you were the minister.
Ms PULFORD: Yes, I was. That is right. Members might recall the debate in the Parliament on legislation to cap the expansion of the scallop fishery. That was the matter where Mr Staindl’s client had an interest. I cannot recall that there were departmental representatives at that meeting, but I am happy to refer to notes and diary.
RSL poker machines
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:12): My question is for Minister Leane, as veterans minister. The RSL was founded during World War I to help care for returning veterans. A hundred years later these clubs are multimillion-dollar organisations. In Victoria a large proportion of the RSL’s annual income comes from poker machines. To be precise, RSL poker machines turn over $260 million in revenue, but less than 4 per cent of that revenue, $9.8 million, goes back into the community and veteran welfare. We know that veterans are disproportionately represented in homeless populations, with higher rates of mental health issues, higher rates of drug and alcohol dependence and higher rates of gambling addiction. There has been a concerted push by some younger members within the RSL—and I suspect they have corresponded with you—to get pokies out of RSL clubs, arguing that it is not worth the return. Will the minister work with veterans organisations to achieve this outcome?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:13): I thank Ms Patten for her question, and I suppose the initial answer is that the finances of the business of the RSL are up to them to administer. I think gaming machines have been an element of some branches—not all branches, only some branches—and I do take into account that there would be different opinions within the RSL and among vets that are maybe not even members of the RSL around how those finances may be collected or achieved.
Ms Patten, as you said, I have had people come to me with delegations around the worth or not of being in this particular area. Once again I think the chamber and the rest of the community would actually be quite horrified if a minister of the state government was interfering with the RSL. I think the history you gave of their establishment is very good, and I do take into account that that is the core business RSL branches believe in and strive to achieve. And when I say all RSL branches, I believe that is their intent. I think that any finances that go towards welfare are a very good thing. I think the debate within the RSL is whether enough welfare from this money is going towards vets, and I think that is the debate they need to have. In the RSL everything moves on and everything changes. This may be a change; it may not. I understand that they have got their AGM coming up soon, and I am sure there will be a debate around that. Once again that is not for me to put my two bob in.
I think ex-service organisations in general, not just the RSL, do put their mind to welfare. And I have got to say, I do not think they get helped too much by the federal government. I do not think they get helped too much by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which seems to act like, if an ex-service man or woman wants assistance in welfare, the first answer always seems to be no. And then they have got to swim the Nile, climb a pyramid and then come back and do it again, and then they might get another hearing. I think it is a shame that Victorian ESOs are in this place. They should not be in this place. The DVA’s budget last year was $11 billion, and we have got Victorian ESOs in a place where they feel that this is an area that they must completely concentrate on, when maybe we should give them a break.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:16): I do take your point on the federal matters, and I take your point, Minister, that it is possibly not within your functions to talk to them about this. But when we look at how RSLs now owe the government $68 million in poker machine licence fees—and we know that the RSLs are going into debt all over the place—I am asking: would the minister advocate and investigate whether these fees could be reduced or abolished?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:17): Ms Patten, you are asking me a question that is outside my portfolio, but I am always happy to advocate for welfare of veterans in whatever form that may take. I understand that during COVID for some of these RSL branches, through no fault of the members at all, COVID did affect these branches because they were more the broad brush of gambling venues, so they could not operate. I did actually reach out to the RSL via my adviser to see if we can speak to local governments and if there are halls where people could gather and do that core business that you spoke about because of them unfortunately not being able to use the venues that they have been used to using over recent years. I welcome all questions around veterans affairs, and I thank Ms Patten and other members who in recent weeks have actually brought this to attention. I have got to say, people in the veterans community and family are noticing and actually appreciating it.
Ministers statements: Sole Trader Support Fund
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:18): I would like to take this opportunity to update the house on the way our government is supporting Victorian sole traders through the COVID-19 pandemic, including through the $100 million Sole Trader Support Fund. Sole traders like Tania, from Heads Up Health, are getting a helping hand to pay the bills and to maintain their business premises. While many sole traders receive income support from the commonwealth’s JobKeeper program, the Sole Trader Support Fund provides a grant of $3000 to eligible business operators who continue to incur costs for rent and utilities. Tania has provided a vital service for clients during the pandemic and has used the money from her grant to help pay for technology upgrades to boost her telehealth capabilities. She said:
The funding was incredible news—I can take far better care of my patients with better tele-health technology rather than working off a 13-inch screen …
The Sole Trader Support Fund is open for applications until 23 November, and sole traders are also eligible for support under several other Victorian government programs, including the commercial tenancy relief scheme, providing rental relief through to the end of December this year; Upskill My Business, providing free access to online short courses and training events; wellbeing and mental health support, which is a $26 million program helping Victorians dealing with the challenges of running a small business to access the support they need, including a dedicated seven-day-a-week helpline; and the business recovery and resilience mentoring program, which is a $10 million program connecting small business owners and sole traders with business mentoring and advice.
COVID-19
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:19): My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Premier. Minister, the interim report of the hotel quarantine inquiry tabled last Friday found that taxpayers forked out $195 million to operate the hotel quarantine program, a program that unleashed the COVID-19 second wave that has taken 800 Victorian lives, cost tens of thousands of jobs, ruined so many small businesses and closed our state to foreign travellers and returned residents alike. The report found the operation of the program was shambolic and organisationally dysfunctional with a lack of clear lines of authority or accountability. Minister, key parts of our economy, such as tourism, hospitality and international education, as well as Australians stranded overseas, are all dependent on a safe and secure quarantine system operating in Victoria so that people can enter our state safely. The Premier has said the recommendations that board chair Coate makes in her report are critical to a safe system. I therefore ask: when will the government respond to the recommendations contained in the Coate interim report about a revised quarantine system in Victoria?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:20): I will certainly pass on Mr O’Donohue’s question to the Premier. However, just from my own observations, this question has been directly asked of the Premier and indeed the Minister for Health on numerous occasions by the media in daily stand-ups. I believe that the answer has been that it is a significant report. I do disagree with the description Mr O’Donohue has used in terms of the findings. The report is very much a forward-looking document, and we look forward to the final report in due course. But the government’s response to the interim report—the interim report is substantive in itself, needs consideration and deserves a thorough response—will be forthcoming.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:21): Minister, you are right that the media and others have been asking the Premier every day when the response to the report will be tabled or when the government will respond to it formally, because it is central, according to the Premier, to establishing a revised quarantine program that is safe and secure, unlike your botched first attempt. But I ask by way of supplementary, Minister: can you confirm that the total cost of the hotel quarantine inquiry, including legal and other departmental costs for departments and ministers, now exceeds $15 million, up from the original budget of only $3 million?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:22): Mr O’Donohue, no, I cannot confirm that. I will pass your supplementary question on to be responded to alongside the substantive.
Illegal tobacco
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:22): My question is to the Minister for Local Government, Mr Leane. The many problems associated with illicit tobacco retailing are rapidly becoming even more significant in Victoria, particularly for many law-abiding small businesses. Unfortunately section 36 of the Tobacco Act 1987 places the responsibility for search and seizure of illegal tobacco with local councils. However, councils rarely have sufficient resources, let alone the specialist surveillance, evidence-gathering and law enforcement expertise or personnel to undertake this work. Minister, in that context, could you tell me what actions the government is currently taking to improve the capacities of local government to deal with these serious problems or, alternatively, if anything will be done to reassign these significant responsibilities to dedicated law enforcement agencies that are better resourced and funded to undertake this work?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:23): I feel like I am in a similar situation as to the question Ms Crozier asked me yesterday, but I will endeavour to do my best to respond to Ms Maxwell’s question, because I know this is an area she is actually quite interested in. But I will say that I will have to get some information from the Minister for Health, who has a responsibility for the Tobacco Act. I will do that.
I think there are about 126 acts that come over the top of local government, and some of them are obviously the Tobacco Act, the Food Act 1984, the Building Act 1993 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 of course, and there are a number of acts that are the responsibility of other ministers. Those ministers do work closely with local government for local government to be able to fulfil their responsibilities under those particular acts. As far as the Tobacco Act goes, as I said, it is the Minister for Health, and I will follow this up. But my understanding is that Victoria Police is also authorised to enforce this act, and my understanding is that Vic Police probably do more of the enforcing of this act because some of this activity is tied to criminal gangs; ‘syndicates’ is probably a better word.
I think that, as I said, there are a number of roles and a number of acts that local government are required to enforce in certain ways. In answering your question, I see the local government sector as the councillors, the mayors, the CEOs and also the thousands and thousands of people that work in the sector and a lot of groups that interact with local government. So I am actually really keen to understand any challenges that any local government worker may have in any area so that I might be able to advocate to other ministers in the cabinet about how their work may be done better or more easily or in a more comfortable fashion.
In saying that, I will commit to Ms Maxwell to get a response. It will be via the Minister for Health, because once again I would be doing her and this chamber a disservice if I actually tried to give her an answer to the crux of her question. I will say to Ms Maxwell that I am more than happy to work with her in any way that I can under my responsibilities on this issue or any other issue that there is some genuine concern about.
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:26): Thank you, Minister Leane. I think a big part of the problem is that, whether it be state or federal police, council or whoever, everybody runs for cover and nobody wants to completely take responsibility. In the previous question I mentioned that the problems around illegal tobacco are rapidly escalating. KPMG found recently, for example, that 20 per cent of all tobacco consumed in Australia is now illicit, and Channel 9’s A Current Affair calculated last week that smuggling tobacco is now up to 10 times more profitable than smuggling cocaine. Minister, could you therefore please outline what actions, if any, the government is currently taking to increase the penalties associated with illegal tobacco retailing? I ask given that the current powers in Victoria to close down illegal tobacco retailers seem to only have practical impact for about 24 hours in most cases and that the other sanctions currently available to the government do not seem to be providing us with a sufficient deterrent effect either.
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:27): Thanks, Ms Maxwell. I think the answer is that I have not been party to any discussions around this issue or any foreshadowed actions, if any, that the government may be planning to take, so I will—
Members interjecting.
Mr LEANE: I set this up with Mr Tarlamis. If ever I get a hard question, he puts a video on. But it is not a hard question; it is a fair question. I will get the appropriate response to that substantive question. As I said, it will have to come via the Minister for Health, but I will chase it up.
Ministers statements: early childhood education
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:28): I rise to update the house on the rollout of the final stage of the $160 million Australian-first school readiness funding. I am pleased that recently we announced that all funded kinder services in Victoria will receive school readiness funding in 2021, meaning every Victorian child attending a funded kindergarten program next year will get the most out of their learning and development. Australian research shows that one in five Victorian children start school developmentally vulnerable, and once behind they tend to stay behind. This needs-based funding aims to reduce the impact of educational disadvantage and improve outcomes in communication, wellbeing, access and participation. This is the first time the funding has been made available to all funded kindergartens in Victoria, with the program now a permanent feature of Victoria’s early childhood education system.
In 2021 over 2500 early childhood services will receive up to $200 000 in funding, depending on the number of children enrolled and the level of educational disadvantage. About 1700 kindergartens in 47 local government areas will receive this funding for the first time in 2021, from Alpine shire to Greater Geelong, Port Phillip and Yarra Ranges. Services delivering funded kindergarten programs for three-year-old kinder in 2021 will also receive this funding. Victoria’s success as the Education State starts with the early years, and that is why the Andrews government is announcing free kinder in 2021 and continues to roll out its $5 billion three-year-old kinder reform.
As the sector keeps telling me, every single one of these reforms leads the nation. The year 2020 has been incredibly challenging for our early childhood services, and I would just like to take this opportunity to again thank our educators and teachers for the amazing work that they do.
Sheep and goat tag levy
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:30): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. On 4 November you announced an increase in the stamp duty rate for Victorian farmers on the sale of their sheep and goats, with the figure tripling over the next three years. It was noted that you engaged with industry. Then why is a key stakeholder such as the Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association saying that they have not been consulted by you or your department?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:31): I thank Ms Bath for her question. In relation to the sheep and goat tag levy there was a public consultation; I very, very clearly recall finalising that last year. I took a great deal of interest in making sure that it was simple and easy to use. It was an online forum for people to be able to engage with. Obviously there was heavy engagement with the Victorian Farmers Federation. There would have been ample opportunity for anybody to participate. In relation to the decision that I formed, the feedback in relation to the levy I could say was very mixed. There was actually a call, particularly from the VFF, to have the full increase realised next year. I took the view as minister that that would be too much too soon, given particularly what we have been enduring during 2020, and therefore it was my decision to incrementally increase this levy. Of course the reason that there are calls to increase this levy earlier is that this raises funds that go directly back to industry, funding industry projects, innovation and projects that industry call for in collaboration with the department of agriculture.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:32): I thank the minister for her response. Given that this is yet another example of you failing to consult properly and completely with the agriculture sector, will you defer this levy increase for sheep and goat producers until such time as true and proper consultation has been completed?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:32): Ms Bath, I obviously always welcome consultation, particularly on matters that are going to financially impact on the sector. I am very confident that every opportunity was provided. Unfortunately, if a stakeholder has missed that opportunity, I will certainly be happy to engage with them. This levy does not come into effect until next year. As I said, it is incremental. I do not actually know the position of the stakeholder that you are articulating—whether they are concerned about a levy increase or if they indeed support the VFF position of the full increase. As I said, when it comes to levy increases you are always going to have people that say ‘no increase’ or ‘the full increase’, and I landed in the middle ground. I do not really think that a further round of consultation is going to change the outcome in relation to the decision that I made on this occasion. But by all means I am very happy to engage directly with the stakeholder on all things that are of interest to them.
Duck hunting
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:34): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture and concerns the Game Management Authority (GMA) game duck aerial survey currently underway in Victoria. The government has committed to introducing adaptive harvest management for game duck hunting in Victoria. An important part of implementing that model is the robust monitoring program to estimate the game duck abundance. The government has funded a pilot project for 2020 to test the theoretical monitoring program design and evaluate its performance by collecting real data in the field. Data will be gathered by counting duck numbers from helicopter surveys at approximately 500 to 600 wetlands, dams and sewage ponds throughout the state. After viewing the map of the flight path, I ask the minister: why is the Werribee treatment plant, home to the largest population of ducks in Australia, not listed?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:34): I thank Mr Bourman for his question in relation to the GMA trials and the phased implementation of the adaptative harvest model. The pilot survey is being conducted by helicopter with experienced wildlife biologists counting the species and number of ducks over 500 wetlands and sewage ponds and for the first time will include farm dams around the state. As Mr Bourman has identified, satellite imaging will then be used to determine how much water is in the landscape, informing an estimate of the total abundance of each game duck species in the state. In relation to the choices of wetlands, that was not a decision that I was involved in. It is designed to be random and to present a good picture of the state.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:35): I thank the minister for her answer. I would suggest that given it has I think 46 per cent of the duck population in Australia, or in Victoria at least, it would probably be a good idea. But, anyway, transparency in government decisions around duck hunting is something that all sides have been calling for. Often we have to wait until long after duck season to find the data that formed the decisions. Minister, when will the data from the aerial survey be made available to the public?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:36): Mr Bourman, I will have to take advice on that. I know I am to receive a briefing from the GMA before the end of the year on a variety of matters, and I would anticipate that I will have either an interim or a full response to that at that time. I do not have an exact date for you, but I am more than happy to come back to you and furnish you with all information from the GMA. I would just point out in terms of transparency, as I have reminded the house on numerous occasions, that we have the Game Management Authority for a purpose—to provide advice to me as minister—and I let them do their work. They provide advice, and I am more than happy once I receive that advice to make it available to you and to anyone else who is interested.
Ministers statements: Premier’s Spirit of Anzac Prize
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:37): I would like to update the house on the Premier’s Spirit of Anzac Prize 2020. It is an annual prize for years 9 and 10 students to encourage students to submit essays considering a topic each year that reflects the Australian experience of war, homecoming and the legacy that has been left. I would like to congratulate the 12 recipients and the 12 finalists who submitted outstanding essay compositions to this year’s Spirit of Anzac Prize. They will receive scholarships that will be administered by their schools which have two components. One component of those scholarships will be $3000 and another will be $1500. The recipients came from a broad range of schools across the state, which is fantastic. I would like to congratulate Norwood Secondary College and in particular the recipients, Samuel Ball and Ebony Brice, and also finalist Olivia Kiefte. Other schools with multiple recipients or finalists included Nagle College in Bairnsdale—
Mr O’Donohue interjected.
Mr LEANE: I congratulate Casey Grimstead and Chelsea Filmer. I also congratulate Parkdale Secondary College and Stephanie McKie and Ashlee Eacott. I really appreciate the work they did, and I am sure they appreciate the scholarship.
If my grammar or my terminology were wrong, I apologise to Professor Henry Higgins over there. I will endeavour and promise to do better.
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (12:39): Regarding questions today, from Dr Ratnam and Mr O’Donohue to the Premier, two days for both question and supplementary; Ms Maxwell to Mr Leane, question and supplementary, one day; and Mr Bourman to Ms Symes, supplementary, one day.
Constituency questions
Northern Victoria Region
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:39): My question is for the Minister for Health and concerns funding for the Healthy Heart of Victoria program in central Victoria. This program was developed in 2018 by the Loddon Campaspe Regional Partnership to improve the health outcomes of people in the region. Six local councils are involved in the initiative, which designs and implements projects focused on getting residents more active to tackle the higher than average rates of obesity and chronic disease in the community. The program is a tried and tested model that can also support health and wellbeing recovery in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. To continue this valuable initiative the partnership has requested funding of $7 million over the next four years. Will the minister provide a commitment that the upcoming 2021 state budget will include funding of $7 million over the next four years to ensure the Healthy Heart of Victoria initiative continues to operate to assist the people of central Victoria?
Northern Victoria Region
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:40): My question is to the Minister for Youth and follows a 26 October media release announcing the establishment of a new $15 million program called Living Learning. This program is targeted at young people who have become disengaged from school and are living with mental health conditions, supplying them with additional support to complete their schooling. However, it seems from the announcement that the program may be available only to young people based in and around Melbourne rather than also to rural and regional Victorians, including from my electorate of Northern Victoria. As there is typically higher disengagement from employment, education and training, a larger youth justice intake and greater demand for mental health support in northern Victoria than in Melbourne, I therefore ask: are residents of my electorate eligible to participate in this program, and if not, why is that the case?
Eastern Metropolitan Region
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:41): My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Will the minister work with local governments in my electorate to significantly increase the number of trees on our streets? The opposition has released its plan to get Victoria back to work and back in business. It includes strong environmental proposals that we actively encourage the government to pick up now, from the Zero to Landfill and waste-to-energy policies to the fast-tracking of a container deposit scheme. A personal favourite of mine is the proposal to plant a million new trees in Victoria. My constituents have been impressing upon me the importance of improving local amenity, especially in Box Hill and around Mount Waverley. With new developments shooting up and the increasing threat of moonscaping, the leafy eastern suburbs of Melbourne are becoming less so, yet we have an opportunity to reclaim that moniker with an increase in tree planting.
Eastern Metropolitan Region
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:42): My constituency question is for the Premier. Taxi fares in Victoria have not increased since 2014, and there have been a number of reviews. Taxidrivers are essential transport workers, as has been demonstrated during this pandemic. They receive no holiday pay, no sick pay, no superannuation and no maternity leave, and many have been known to work for less than $10 an hour—well below the minimum wage. The Essential Services Commission sets these fares, and it is interesting to note the executives at the Essential Services Commission in the same period have received a pay increase of 24.5 per cent. The information I seek is: what is the justification for this unfair treatment of these essential transport workers?
Western Metropolitan Region
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:43): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. I have often spoken in this house about the importance of the Bulla Bridge. This bridge links the Melbourne Airport and Tullamarine Freeway with Sunbury and beyond to the Macedon Ranges. On the all-too-frequent occasions the bridge is blocked by a traffic incident thousands of motorists are sent scurrying onto country roads that will eventually get them to their destination. It is far more than just a minor inconvenience. This bridge is over 150 years old and not built to carry the extraordinary traffic load it now does. Minister, I am informed that last week the Bulla Bridge developed a crack, causing great concern to many locals. This crack was, I am again informed, not attended to by the minister’s departmental agency—again a matter of grave concern. Minister, will you ensure the Bulla Bridge is put on a priority watchlist before it collapses?
Western Victoria Region
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:44): My question is for the Premier. Up until Tuesday the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines stated that the COVID-normal threshold was 28 days of no new cases and no active cases statewide and no other outbreaks of concern interstate. That threshold has now magically gone, along with all clarity and assurance to my electorate that our lives will be able to return to normal in the near future. The people of Western Victoria are sick and tired of being dictated to by bureaucrats in Melbourne on how to run their businesses and their lives. With the removal of this threshold many will be rightly concerned about a possible intention to keep them locked up in perpetuity, so I ask the Premier: when will we move to COVID normal and unlock Western Victoria, and further, given that the threshold caveats have now disappeared, can he confirm if there are new thresholds as opposed to just vague terms like ‘medical advice’?
Southern Metropolitan Region
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:45): My constituency question is for the attention of the Minister for Health, and it relates to hospital visitations. It is not only a number of people in my electorate of Southern Metro that have contacted me about this but also many people across Victoria, and I have helped some of them to be able to see their loved ones in hospital. We all know that throughout this COVID crisis there had to be some restrictions in place for visitation, and obviously hospitals have had to make those decisions in the best interests of their health service and their health staff. Everybody understands that. What I think is one of the tragic circumstances as a result of the large-scale COVID crisis here in Victoria is that it has impacted so many Victorians who have non-COVID-related illnesses. The question I have for the minister is: could he provide some guidance and guidelines as to the ongoing directions that health services may have to place on Victorians and their visitation rights?
Western Metropolitan Region
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:46): My question is to the Minister for Government Services in the other place. It is from one of my constituents, Mr Ken Betts, who was a candidate for Stony Creek ward in the recent Maribyrnong city elections. Mr Betts asked:
How many witnesses were present at the ballot draw, at the Maribyrnong Election Office and who were they?
This was originally reported by the VEC to be publicly viewed and declared. It never was. Why was it done secretly?
I know from my own experience in previous years that the ballot draws have been open to candidates and to representatives from councils, with witnesses present. I believe without candidates being present it goes against having a fair and open process.
Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, President, I draw your attention to the standing orders relating to replies to constituency questions. I asked a question of the Minister for Mental Health on 16 June, some 149 days ago, and I do not have a response; of the Minister for Mental Health on 15 September, some 59 days ago, and I do not have a response; and of the Minister for Planning on 16 September, some 58 days ago. None of these have been responded to.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. I have no authority to direct the minister, but thank you very much.
Northern Victoria Region
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:48): My constituency question is for the Minister for Education. When will Victoria’s education system recognise video games as being equal to conventional sports by establishing an electronic equivalent to School Sport Victoria? We have had high school eSports competitions in Northern Victoria, but students have had to organise them themselves. They want to know why the entire burden falls on them for this type of sport only. Sports and games in Australia have changed. Twenty years ago kids would play with each other in the afternoon by kicking a ball around. Now they play video games with each other, and that is fine. The government does not exist to tell people what is sport and what is not, yet it does that in its education policies. Conventional sports are recognised and supported in the Victorian education system but eSports are not. One of Victoria’s greatest eSports talents is Anathan Pham—possibly the best player in his position in the world. He had to leave Victoria at 16 to pursue his career in China. His story is the norm amongst elite eSports prospects from our state. Victorians need eSports to be treated equally to conventional sports.
Southern Metropolitan Region
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:49): My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. A resident recently contacted me seeking support to get Victoria’s coastline seawalls heritage protected for long-term protection from the continuing impacts of climate change, population growth and ageing coastal structures. I note that the Beach Road, Brighton, bluestone wall has recently been added to the Victorian heritage database as a place of significance due to the bluestone blocks being originally from the Old Melbourne Gaol. My question is: what is the government doing to protect these seawalls from rising sea levels, storm surges and erosion, and in particular to protect the now heritage-registered Brighton Beach wall?
Southern Metropolitan Region
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:50): My constituency question is for the attention of the Minister for Public Transport. We have heard at the IBAC inquiry the significant impact in terms of the COVID cleaning that is occurring on our trams and trains. Now, my electorate, Southern Metro, has a large number of trains and trams, and I use those. What I am seeking from the minister is that he investigate and provide a public assurance that the standards of cleaning have been checked in Southern Metropolitan. I particularly ask about the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines: has the cleaning on those lines, which traverse my electorate, been up to scratch?
Bills
Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Second reading
Debate resumed.
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:51): As a regional MP from a farming background, I found this bill difficult, possibly one of the most personally difficult ones I have dealt with in the last two years. I have listened to the landholders who have contacted me with a great deal of sympathy. I absolutely understand their concerns, and I share some of them. However, as a party, the Liberal Democrats’ position is clear. ‘Public access to public lands’ is something I have repeated many times in this place. While saying it, I have been thinking about the government’s ongoing lockouts from our national parks—an attack on the rights of Victorians—but it also applies equally to these waterfronts. Of course this legislation is partly to ameliorate the effects of these lockouts. You have to find other land to partly make up for the Crown land you have locked us out of. But be that as it may, the government has found a way to continue to buy green votes in the city while still retaining some support from people who actually go out into the bush, camping.
This bill will impact farmers. There will inevitably be trespass. There will, from time to time, be animals attacked. Bushfires may break out. These risks cannot be denied. However, this bill also represents an opportunity for the users of this Crown land to work together to manage it. While the government will introduce regulations, they will inevitably lack the ability to enforce them. However, my great hope is that we will evolve a self-regulating culture amongst campers to ensure that these issues are managed. As a libertarian, I believe civil society has far more value than an overbearing government dictating behaviour. In my maiden speech I talked about a fishing club I am a member of that has been camping on the same site for 50 years. We maintain that camp site, remove our rubbish and indeed feel a sense of responsibility for the land there. That is what I hope we will see repeated again and again—members of the public building bonds with this land over time, and indeed with the leaseholders as well, and managing the land appropriately.
There has always been a right of access to this land. Some leaseholders may not have realised these access rights exist, but they do. Parliament first started talking about this in the 1850s. In the early days of Victorian settlement there was a serious problem with the squatters establishing monopolies over water in the inland and using that control over the water to ensure that they were the only ones able to make productive use of the land. Actually this is echoed by what is going on today with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, but I digress. Parliament had its first serious crack at addressing the issues in 1860. The Crown Lands Sale Bill 1860 sought to prevent the alienation of any Crown riverfrontages. The mover of the bill said:
We merely indicate the general policy of the Government by the term “water frontages.” From the 15th to the 20th clause the House will find the provisions are chiefly framed for starting this system, which, when the lands are once thrown open to the public, will, I think, be such as will prevent any monopoly by one section of the people to the prejudice of another. Exceptions often cause more difficulties than general rules, and these clauses are a proof of it. In order to prevent the first person who rushes on to the land from monopolising the best portions of it, we insure that the race shall not always be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. For these reasons we have found it necessary to adopt the machinery which has been provided in these clauses.
Ultimately that act was amended to remove the provisions that prevented alienation, since it was feared that Victoria would not be able to have mills if they could not be built on rivers, and ownership was retained on those frontages. There may have been merit to that view, but the decision would have lasting implications, as many land bills have come before Parliament over the years that have followed.
The squattocracy fought a political rearguard action throughout the 1860s and 1870s to try to consolidate their water access as a means of depressing land values to selectors. This issue was not fully resolved until, as far as I can tell, six land bills later in 1915, when remaining Crown river land frontages were reserved for public use. As far as I can tell, there was no ban on camping at this point. In fact it seems to be impossible to nail down when the camping was banned or why.
It seems to have been instituted when the Land Act 1958 was brought onto the books, but the Land Act 1958 was never debated in Parliament because it was a product of a consolidation bill. For all the world it looks as though it was snuck in. The consolidation bills of this period were monstrous documents. Indeed in the 1958 Hansard the Attorney-General seriously talks at length about consolidation bills overwhelming the printing capacity of Melbourne. Like some of the omnibus bills we have seen in the last 10 years, they were often too big to be properly reviewed.
At the time the minister for lands and soldier settlement was under pressure from the then Country Party, who had blindsided the Liberals by abandoning their coalition to form a minority government with Labor support in 1950. It seems very plausible to me that concessions like a ban on camping on Crown land, at least for grazing, might have been snuck in during the consolidation to try to shore up support. In any case it was never debated, at least not anywhere my staff could find it, in this Parliament.
I raised all that in an extremely roundabout way to get to the point. If the shoe was on the other foot and camping on Crown riverfrontages was allowed right now and we were debating whether or not we should ban it, there is no way the Liberal Democrats would ever vote for that. Eighty per cent of waterfrontages in Victoria are under private ownership, and this bill does not affect them. It affects only the riverfrontages that are not owned by farmers whose land abuts them. So why is this relevant? Try to make the case the other way, the one that was never made in 1958, about how the public should not have access to this public land because the private landholder next to it does not want them to use it that way. It is just not tenable, and that is what this comes down to.
Those who object to allowing camping on these riverfrontages do it because they have an implicit belief that abutting it or leasing it for grazing gives them a greater right over that land than they actually have. This is public land, and the public should have access. Think back to 1860. This is not a new issue. The idea of some farmers claiming a monopoly over the use of riverfrontages to the exclusion of others has been central to the argument over the management of the land we are talking about for hundreds of years.
I am sympathetic to the concerns farmers have. This change will very likely become a headache for farmers and the government and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning if enforcement is perceived as lax. There is no question that some people are irresponsible idiots and that some of them go camping. On the other hand, the fact that some people do the wrong thing is never a valid ground for banning everyone who does the right thing from doing something. I understand they plan to limit the issues they might face from this legislation by using regulations to continue to prohibit camping in many river locations, but we do not really know what will be in the regulations. At the end of the day, despite my personal feelings, this is a pretty simple issue: if it is public land, then it must be available for public use. Parliament has been trying to work out a way to allow the use of these commons by the public for nearly 150 years now, and it seems like we are going to take another step on that journey today.
Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:59): I will be very brief. I am supporting the reasoned amendment, and I am supporting it in one particular case especially. It is interesting when you look at this week. We have had a number of comments about NAIDOC Week, and I join with members who have expressed a confidence in the processes that are administered by NAIDOC and the celebration of that week for our Indigenous people. In that context it is interesting that the feedback that I have on this legislation is that there was insufficient consultation with Indigenous communities, including the Wurundjeri people in respect of the Yarra River catchment around Melbourne and Melbourne’s suburbs. The reasoned amendment actually gives an opportunity to right that problem by giving the Indigenous communities a greater opportunity for consultation and to have their views expressed in regard to this legislation.
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (13:01): I rise to speak on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Management of land can be a tricky issue, and it is always a bit of a balancing act between competing interests—humans, flora and fauna, property and of course the environment. It is surprising the number of different groups that have contacted me in large numbers, both supporting and opposing this bill, based on how they see the way it should be used: fishing enthusiasts who want access to this public land—and it is public land—for camping; farmers who currently use and are hopefully maintaining the land; and environment groups, including Landcare, who want to protect this land. It is just the volume and how quickly this has come on and the surprise in some people’s comments to me that really they feel as if they have not been consulted and do not know the details of how this is going to work out.
As it stands, fishers, hikers and other individuals like birdwatchers are able to access licensed Crown land for picnics, walking, fishing, sunbaking and other recreational activities. Many of these areas are accessed on foot via public tracks but sometimes, with permission, via public driveways. On meeting with the Victorian Fisheries Authority the other week, they said that some landowners are illegally locking access gates to these areas to stop public entry to licensed Crown land, and that is one of the key reasons they are pushing for this legislation. This is most certainly a problem. It is illegal, and it should be easily fixed—or it should be fixed—and it should be policed.
But speaking to a local Jamieson farmer the other week I was advised that fishermen and picnickers regularly frequent the licensed Crown land in front of his property on the river. There is no parking on this site unless they use his private driveway, so they park on the main road. There is no fencing between the Crown land available to him under licence and his private land. Often his cows are grazing along this land at the same time as the visitors are present. There is a public access gate, and they walk along the river, enjoy the facilities, fish, have a swim and go home—no problem. Sometimes there has been conflict, but thankfully the stays are short and the situation is usually manageable. Sometimes they leave rubbish behind, but as he sees it it is his responsibility to maintain this land, so he cleans it up. The onus after all falls on the farmer to look after the land for which he or she has a grazing licence.
Whilst I do understand that fishing groups would like to have increased access, I do have concerns about opening this land up to unrestricted camping. I believe we should be able to camp, and I am a camper myself, but I camp on Crown land areas with access roads or designated camping areas by the river. Where people can camp in available areas by the river there should be public composting toilets nearby and, most importantly, patrols by rangers overseeing issues such as fires and rubbish. That way camping can be managed in a safe and harmonious manner.
If we are talking about hiking and camping way out in the bush, that should only be done by people who really know what they are doing—and that can be a problem with opening up camping to unrestricted sorts of activities. Anybody who goes down to Ray’s Tent City and buys a kit can consider themselves a camper, but really, camping is something that should be done very carefully.
The farmers holding grazing licences on this land have legitimate concerns about the management of the land. Farms are, by their nature, dangerous places, and on them heavy machinery is used to cart hay, plough fields and transport livestock. Where there is no definition between private property and the licensed Crown land, there are bound to be problems with the implementation of this bill. What happens when Farmer Joe sprays the licensed grazing land or puts 100 cows on to graze, only to have a family turn up to camp and be at risk of poisoning or having a rogue cow charge at the group? What happens when a camper’s four-year-old runs onto the farmer’s property and gets hit by a passing tractor?
If the government want to control who has access to these stretches of land, they also need to manage them themselves—take away the grazing licences and make them permanent public areas available for camping or other recreational use or make them full leaseholds to the farmers, where the farmer could control who has access. The fee for grazing on this land is ridiculously small. If farmers want to restrict access, they should be able to lease the land; what is not leased then should be properly policed. If the government wants to continue to issue licences to farmers and wants the farmers to manage the land, they must listen to the farmers’ concerns. There is too much responsibility pressed onto the licensee to manage the influx of campers. It will not be the government who is there to support the camper when they get bitten by a snake; it will be the nearest house and farmer who has to come to the rescue. Will the government be the one to come in and clean up rubbish left behind by rogue campers—and I admit most current campers are good campers, but you do find rogue campers who leave bottles behind and all sorts of mess—or will it be the farmer who has to clean it up?
If campers move more than 20 metres from the riverbank to take care of bodily functions, they will often be on private property, and then campers will be leaving human excrement on private property, where the regulations require septic tanks to be at least 100 metres from the banks. There should be at least basic toilet facilities nearby, or campers need to be equipped and/or trained as to how to safely deal with human waste.
I have concerns about camp fires of course and the risk of bushfire in these unmanaged and remote areas. Who will pay for fencing, fire damage, theft and stock deaths? It seems that would fall back on the local farmer. The government may think that a few extra officers would be able to keep an eye on these groups, but with the amount of extra camp sites proposed for the future, especially in remote areas, I think quite a few officers will be needed. That is why we really need to see the regulations and know which areas are to be used, how they are going to be policed and how those things are going to be controlled and enforced. There are bound to be issues like alcohol, illegal hunting, large gatherings, conflict and noise, motorbike damage and illegal trespassing, amongst other things. It should not be up to the local farmers to get involved or even try to manage these situations.
There is also environmental damage to be considered here—riverbank damage, erosion, water pollution and the probability of illegal removal of vegetation and trees for camp fires. These areas need to be policed in some way, and perhaps a permit system should be implemented. Perhaps campers should be licensed and be given basic training. I know we are trying to help recreational fishing enthusiasts, most of whom, as Mr Bourman says—apart from him, as he jokes—are environmentally conscious and responsible, but here we open up riverbanks to unrestricted camping, and not just for fishing.
I am a keen camper and I know the difficulties of finding a camping area in the bush these days, especially by the river. When I was young it was easy. Since then our population has doubled. We have doubled the population since the 1970s, and in our ecological folly we plan to double it again. If you are looking for a camping spot outside a commercial camping ground but in an allowed area by the river, you will be pretty hard put to find one easily, especially at peak times. There are suggestions on the internet. However, when we find places on Crown land or in a state forest on the riverbank during weekends and holidays they are packed, and behaviour and littering is often a problem. These camping places usually have available roads. They have some toilets within walking or driving distance and are policed to some degree by rangers.
This legislation is intended to open up our rivers to even more campers, often untrained, as I said, in environmentally responsible camping. Some groups are good and bring their own firewood, but there are many who do not. What about unrestrained pets with livestock and local fauna? I question why, when we seem to be restricting and limiting the public from state forests and national parks to protect them from too many humans, we would consider opening up and damaging more environmentally sensitive riparian Crown land. Should we not be establishing more camping grounds and designated areas in the wild for camping so that environmental damage can be contained to specifically patrolled areas to minimise the impact? But if we open up unregulated camping all over our precious rivers without any training, licensing or policing, there will be trouble. The government says, ‘Trust us. We will introduce regulations. Don’t worry about the quality; feel the width’. I think it is great that they are talking about not bringing the legislation into effect for a year to do consultation, but really this should have been done before and we should have some idea of the areas where this is going to be effected and how it is going to be policed before it comes before the house. And I really hope they do introduce good regulations.
This legislation is intended to allow for more campers while the government goes ahead with its plan to rapidly grow Victoria’s population. Imagine twice as many campers as what is even likely under this legislation looking for spots on our waterways, bringing pollution and destruction to the native environment. I would also question why there has not been more consultation and a detailed plan announced prior to this drastic change. If farmers controlling locked gates are really the issue, why are the government not doing something to remedy that situation or why have they not taken more active responsibility for that in the past, making sure that gates are open or that pedestrian access is provided or even creating parking areas in those areas so as to work better? And if costs are the problem, the minuscule $68 licence fee is ridiculous. Why not increase the fees or better still require licensed land to be leased rather than licensed?
To support this bill I would need to see a means of controlling camping and possibly limiting the number of camp sites along riverfrontages. As I said, there is a need for maybe a registration system or a permit system so that rangers can manage the numbers and environmental prerequisites placed on campers. The system may be managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and farmers could possibly notify the department when conditions on their licensed areas for camping are unsafe. Firearms, pets and motorbikes would have to be controlled area by area. Strong safeguards could be put in place so campers know about access to parking and local conditions and could be advised what to bring or, more importantly, what not to leave behind when they vacate.
I am concerned about the way this has come before us, I am concerned about the lack of consultation and I am concerned about the lack of indication as to how regulations would apply and where. I think what I would like to see is the government take this back and do more work—do more consultation work and give us an idea of what sort of regulations are going to be brought in and where. I am concerned about the flurry of late amendments that have come both from the government and from the opposition, without really a lot of time—well, with hardly any time—to consider things.
So I would urge the government to postpone this bill. I have difficulties with some of the opposition’s amendments. I am concerned about the one to refer it off to the Environment and Planning Committee because I know the huge amount of work that that committee has got on its plate already. If we bring this in and say they have got to report in six months on this without extra resources being given to the committee to do it or without a separate committee or resources to set up a subcommittee to do this work, I feel as if that would be overworking the committee, without the resources to do it. If the government wants to do that, they would need to give us the resources to do it. For me this bill makes the legislation far too open. It lacks safeguards. So for today I will not be supporting it, but I look forward to hearing how it progresses as we go on this afternoon.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:16): I rise this afternoon to make my contribution on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. In doing so I want to outline that there are certainly some uncontentious parts to this bill. They include the areas that look to vary boundaries within a number of national parks, and some of them certainly are in my electorate. They are the points that are reasonable, and we do not have a problem with passing those.
But there are certainly a number of other points, and one in particular is clause 49 in this bill in relation to camping on licensed Crown land. I feel that Mr Bourman is really charging short the farming fraternity and the Victorian Farmers Federation when he says that somehow they do not know the difference between licensed Crown land, freehold land and leased land. I, like many others in this place, have had many, many communications with people, including via email, people ringing the office wanting to speak to me and also going on Zoom. I have often afforded them that because this is a very important bill and a very important issue. They know the difference between leased land, freehold land and Crown land, and today we are dealing very much with Crown land.
We have more than 170 000 river and water frontages. For decades people have been enjoying the pursuits along those riverfrontages, including bushwalking, fishing, birdwatching and all of the things that draw people to that wonderful and natural outdoor space and the beauty of waterways, noting that there are over 8000 Crown land waterfrontages covering 56 000 hectares. This therefore is not an insignificant issue.
The government feels that they have a mandate. They took it to the election that they would overturn things and enable people to camp. We know that people have been able to gain access on a daily basis, on a visitor basis, to go onto these Crown land licensed places and actually have the day there—go fishing, sit, watch birds et cetera. We know that they have done this. Many of the licence-holders—the farmers, the landholders—have encouraged and facilitated this. They have over many decades built up longstanding relationships with very good people who want to access this Crown land. I have heard a story of one family that has let people on an ongoing basis camp on that land for many years, and the families will often drop off some fish on the way through. There is a respect there.
Legislation is always for the 5 per cent of the population. I guarantee that none of the people in here are going to wind up having to deal with a murder case that they have inflicted on somebody. It is for the 5 per cent of the population who do the wrong thing, but we have to be aware that those people do exist.
People that I have spoken with very much have concerns in relation to protecting and preserving native habitats from disease, from pests, from waste, from abuse and from fire hazards and biosecurity risks, and I want to delve into those a little bit further in my contribution. There need to be safeguards, and that is why The Nationals and the Liberals have put forward a very sensible amendment to clause 49 to insert that to enable camping it requires the permission of the licence-holder to do so.
I understand and I accept Mr Hayes’s position about the very busy nature of our upper house committees, while also noting that the government removed joint committees at the beginning of their term. We could have sent this to a joint committee if they still existed, but the government thought, ‘Let’s stop working hard. Let’s compact all those committees’. But this issue is very, very important, it impacts on a range of things and it needs to be addressed, so I will certainly be asking the house to commend the inquiry and accept that position and that amendment.
And the Labor Party has put forward an amendment today, again with very short notice. Ours was up for quite a while. In fact I know the crossbenchers had the opportunity on Monday to have a consultation with our shadow, Bridget Vallence, who did a very thorough job of communicating with them. But the Labor Party has come up with, ‘We want to pass the bill, and then we’ll do some chat, we’ll have some consultation’. What this party has done better than all others is lack good consultation with key stakeholder groups. We stand here and I see it time after time.
The Victorian Farmers Federation has provided a briefing on their position, which we attended via Zoom, and one of their key factors was a great concern around biosecurity. Farms often abut that Crown riparian land, and sometimes they will have water access there. But often they will have fences that will come up to that land that people will come over, and we heard stories—quite shocking stories—around animals being attacked, in one case stolen, and animals being shot at. This occurs now. We understand this occurs right now, but if you allow people to camp overnight and for long durations, this issue can only get worse, not better.
There has been a great deal of support from various organisations. I thank Barry Howlett from the Australian Deer Association for putting their position of support for this bill, and I replied to him. I respect his position but also note that there needs to be balance. Interestingly enough—from a very great family in Gippsland, the Bolton family—Julie Bolton, whom I have spoken to recently, is an ADA Gippsland member, and she has an opposite view to Barry. She is most concerned about what will happen—and she listed in a rapid-fire note erosion, biosecurity, rubbish, guns, dogs, gates left open, lack of policing, cattle, cattle out, alcohol—if this occurs and there is duration, that overnight and long-stay camping. She also raised the issue that on their farm—and they own a Crown land licensed agreement—there is bovine meat measles. That was news to me. She said it does have an official name that we will not go into, but it was caught by her stock because of human faeces left on the riverfrontage. Stock consumed it, and those stock were condemned to death. If this occurs now, what will happen when there is unfettered camping on these Crown land licences?
Also she notes—and many other people who have contacted me raised the issue—that already there are free public spaces without toilets and the like on Crown land. McGauran Beach is one of those in my electorate, and she said, ‘You only have to go down there recently after people have been camping to note the amount of rubbish and squalor that is left there on this free camping space’. Often locals will go down and clean it up. I have heard time and time again that parks and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning struggle to maintain the current state-owned public spaces, whether it be national parks or state forest, and people across my electorate, up in the north up near Omeo and the like and on the Mitta Mitta River, say that they are negligent in relation to this. Now, they often say it is not the local DELWP officers that are at fault. They have been drawn back from those where they had postings out in regional communities. They have been drawn back in, whether it be down to Bairnsdale or even further in, and it has contracted away from on the ground. Many people, I would think, join the likes of Parks Victoria and DELWP to be out there in nature and to do that very good work of cleaning toilets but also maintaining, taking away weeds and cleaning that pristine environment, and it is no longer pristine. So I put that on the public record—that there are varying views.
I also want to respect the view of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, who commented to me through David Laird that they support this bill. The comment he made—and I get this—was that public land is for public space. But my other position—and it is for all of us in this place—is that that is fine, but we usually have a nature strip out the front of our place. That is a public space as well. Would we feel comfortable if people set up camp out on our nature strip, large or small? Yes, that is ridiculous, Melina, but on one level it still has the same level of meaning.
So to the other points, at Field and Game Australia one particular person who I value and is much esteemed is Gary ‘Pud’ Howard from the Heart Morass. He has dedicated countless hours to turning a wasteland into a beautiful wetland, and there are species there that have come back into that gorgeous place. He has concerns if there is an extension of this camping. He said already sometimes he can see what will happen. He said there will be the cutting down of trees and scrub, the cutting of wood for camp fires, the removal of wood for domestic firewood, the leaving behind of rubbish, the scarring and defacing of trees, the destroying of tracks, the defecating all over the place and non-removal of waste, uncontrolled dogs and leaving gates open. And you can see, he said, we will face another problem in relation to security. He went on. Yes, if they wanted to do something in the Heart Morass, they could fence off, but of course that is hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that. And he said that sometimes a decent flood could damage and take most of that away.
I thank the people that have sent these communications to me on this topic. If we had a magic wand, we would all be able to do exactly what we need and what we want to, but there are always going to be people who do the wrong thing. I acknowledge the fact that Mr Bob Baldwin of the Australian Fishing Trade Association wrote to me this morning and said thank you and ‘I’d like you to support this’. And VRFish, which is really just an element of the government in truth, is very much in favour of this, but Ian Gibb—a very esteemed person, the country vice-president of the Council of Victorian Fly Fishing Clubs, a fly-fisherman who has for years dedicated his life to the improvement of conditions for platypus in the region of central Victoria along the Goulburn—is concerned in relation to this as well, and he goes on in quite some detail about livestock, gates, camp fires et cetera. He also says, and I do want to outline the concerns that he has alerted me to, that these lovely pristine environments along these waterfrontages are home to platypus, and he said that one day he counted 30 when he was out fly fishing—again, a very passive and beautiful sport, one that my grandfather did in East Gippsland for many, many years. They like to leave a place better than when they found it, so they pick up and take their rubbish. So he is concerned about what will happen if there is camping by that 10 per cent who do not look after the environment. He is also concerned about black swans in that space. Liz Summerville of the Australian Livestock and Property Agents Association raised their concerns in relation to their members as well, and I said biosecurity comes up time and time again.
Minister Symes, in her capacity as a local member, wrote back to one of the farmers who described his concern. I find this quite amazing considering the ramifications of the conversation that she has got in this letter, of the requirement. She said:
The Victorian Fisheries Authority would install gates and signage to Crown land entry points to help people access these areas …
Does that mean she is going to do it across the whole state? Does that mean that Victorian fisheries are going to have the funding to do that? I flag that this needs to be addressed in committee of the whole. There are many, many things, including bushfire overlays and mitigation. There are a raft of issues that we are concerned about.
Finally, I would just like to make reference to Mr Bourman, who I believe must be about to change the name of his party, because when I heard him speak before he was very nonchalant about farmers, so I feel he may be just about to remove that term from the title of his—
Mrs McArthur: If he’s not, he should.
Ms BATH: He should indeed. I will take up Mrs McArthur’s interjection there. I think he should think about it and remove it, because the people I have spoken to are not corporate pals, they are genuine people who have genuine concerns. They love their environment. They do not want to be cavalier; they want to be respectful. They often still encourage and permit and allow, as they should, people on for a day visit, but they have grave concerns about long-term overnight stays, with camping and alcohol, where glass can be smashed in the process and there can be degradation of places where they have often spent many, many years improving the land and removing weeds et cetera. I ask the house to accept our amendments, and I would have grave concerns about this bill if it were to pass in this form.
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:31): I rise to speak on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This bill relates to the management of Crown land—that is, government-owned land in Victoria. It proposes to do a few things, some of which are good and others that have raised concerns from the community. One of the good things this bill does is create the Yallock-Bulluk Marine and Coastal Park on the Bass Coast, a beautiful stretch of coast between San Remo and Inverloch. This is a good initiative and one the Greens support. It is great to see new funding put into this area so more people can benefit from improved walking tracks and enjoy the area’s pristine beaches. I look forward to seeing the additional land purchased to make this park a reality. The bill also adds two important national parks, the Errinundra and Great Otway national parks, and creates new reserves. I am also excited to see it create the Yellingbo Landscape Conservation Area, home to our beautiful and threatened helmeted honeyeater. We are so lucky to have beautiful natural places and wildlife in Victoria, and I am sure that I am not alone in being excited about getting out and about after the year we have had.
However, in having such a beautiful state at our doorstep the Greens and I are incredibly mindful of our responsibility to care for our special places, especially our rivers. One aspect of this bill which has attracted significant attention is the move to enable camping on licensed riverfrontages. This is a commitment that the Andrews Labor government gave at the 2018 election in response to lobbying from the Victorian recreational fishing lobby group. It is one of many commitments this government has given to fishers and hunters in Victoria. In speaking on this aspect of the bill, I want to make one thing about the Greens position about nature and camping really clear. We absolutely support people having access to nature and being able to get out and enjoy our beautiful state. We want to see more people enjoying and connecting with nature, whether it is walking, camping, birdwatching, canoeing or other activities that engage with nature but do not destroy it. However, we are very concerned about this plan the government is trying to rush through the Parliament to enable camping in many new areas along Victorian rivers, without it seems having properly thought it through.
Over the past few weeks my office has been inundated by local landowners, residents, Landcare groups and others incredibly concerned about the potential impacts of this change. On Monday my team put out a survey asking for the community’s views ahead of this debate today. In less than three days more than 900 people had filled in this survey. Of the people who have responded, 60 per cent do not want these changes to pass, 10 per cent do support them and the remaining 30 per cent say it depends on where and how the camping is managed. The response to our survey shows that people want to have a say and to be heard, and it is incredibly disappointing that the Labor government has not consulted with them and is rushing through the change in law before starting a process of consultation.
People who have contacted my team and completed the survey are, like the Greens, supportive of people enjoying nature and our rivers. Many of them have let us know that they are already happy to see people going fishing and walking along our rivers, and many of them even indicated their support for camping, provided it is in appropriate places and appropriately managed. Yet overwhelmingly what we are hearing is that they are incredibly disappointed, upset and angry that the government has not consulted with them or thought through the real-world implications of these changes.
Let me just list some of the issues raised by more than 800 people who have contacted us: fire risks from escaped camp fires; impacts on trees and vegetation, especially where efforts have been made by dedicated Landcare volunteers to restore riversides; noise and safety; shooting and impacts on wildlife; rubbish left behind; lack of toilets and risk to water quality; impacts on stock; introduction of weeds; and biosecurity concerns. There are many legitimate questions people have asked, such as: what is the blanket rule? Why isn’t the government identifying and setting up appropriate camp sites properly? What about the impact on businesses like regional accommodation and caravan parks, who have already been hit hard by the pandemic? Why isn’t the government focusing on existing areas of camping and improving those instead? And who do people go to if something does go wrong? Will extra rangers be created to manage all this new camping? For some weeks we have been contacting the government to try and have many of these very valid concerns answered and addressed.
It is disappointing that we have not had adequate responses from the government to these questions from the community and that the government is instead trying to rush this change through the Parliament. Only yesterday did the government finally acknowledge the ridiculousness of making this significant change on 1 December this year. I note they will be moving an amendment to delay it until September next year. However, today we are being asked to vote on this change with absolutely no detail but with the assurance that the government will sort that all out between now and September next year apparently. Well, I really do not feel that is acceptable. In recognition of the significant concern from the community and many, many questions that remain unanswered, I will be moving a reasoned amendment to this bill. I am happy for that to be circulated now. I move:
That all words and expressions after ‘this bill’ be omitted and the following inserted in their place:
‘be refused to be read a second time until the government has:
(1) undertaken comprehensive consultation with landowners, local communities, Landcare groups and other Victorians potentially impacted by the proposal to enable camping on Crown land riverfrontages;
(2) drafted and consulted a set of regulations outlining:
(a) areas that are included and excluded from camping;
(b) how camping will be regulated;
(c) the risks to biodiversity, biosecurity, water quality, fire and safety; and
(d) other relevant matters identified during consultation.’.
We believe that this bill should be delayed until the Labor government have done their homework, consulted with the community and shown us in detail how this new camping will work so that everyone here can make an informed vote. On the amendments circulated by the opposition, we are sympathetic to what they are attempting to do with these amendments in finding a way forward. However, we will not be supporting the substantive amendment. We have been contacted by landowners concerned the amendments would create an unreasonable responsibility on them to police the activities and are concerned about the potential for conflict. As I said, we believe the best thing is for the government to hold off, get it right in the first place, talk to landowners and then pass the legislation.
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (13:39): I rise today to speak on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. My contribution will flag some considerations Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party would like the government to keep in mind when they are discussing the regulatory framework that is determined following the likely passage of this bill. First, I would like to acknowledge that I recognise Crown land is land that belongs to the Victorian people, and so we should have access to it. But something every Victorian should understand is that there are currently hundreds of thousands of acres of land that are being managed and maintained through leasing by third parties, in many cases by farmers who own the adjacent land. These farmers or third parties pay thousands of dollars per year to hold the licence on this land, usually for a long period of time, and in return their cattle can graze or they can use it to crop or otherwise. They also need to fulfil their contractual obligations or run the risk of losing their licence, which includes maintaining this land to a bushfire-safe standard, so reducing fuel loading and the like.
The argument from some in the community that farmers are trying to steal this land or that they think it is their own land may be valid in a few very rare circumstances where farmers have blocked access to Crown land on purpose, noting that this is not legal. However, from the other side, if you are legally in charge of maintaining land and keeping it safe for crops, cattle or preservation and have done so for decades, I can also see the hesitation to make access to it open slather. I think there is great merit in certain lands being excluded from this overnight camping permission. This includes land that abuts national parks. I think that this is especially so in the interests of bushfire prevention.
A query that we had was around the infrastructure, including toilets, signage and fencing. We have been assured that additional toilet facilities will be funded as a result of the prohibition on camping being lifted. That is great news. Our assumption is that the most appropriate and utilised Crown land frontages will be chosen for the building of drop toilets once thorough consultation has taken place. Signage and fencing are going to be necessary to make it clear where private property begins in order to retain the privacy of landowners and protect their assets.
On the topic of investment in overnight camping infrastructure, it is necessary to also flag that these sites may require more regular monitoring of camping compliance. From conversations with the licensees, it is obvious that there are already issues of littering from daytrippers, so the assumption is that there will only be more litter with more people staying overnight. To ensure farmers can have cattle grazing without them possibly ingesting rubbish or creating a biosecurity risk and can have clear waterways and clean private property, monitoring is essential.
Camp fires have been a main point of reference when arguing why not to support this bill. Following a catastrophic bushfire season and the warmer summer weather that we are feeling year upon year, we need to be so careful with lighting camp fires. We need adequate signage showing what areas are allowed to have camp fires, a possible curfew for having lit camp fires and safe practices for lighting and putting out camp fires at the very minimum. For those who say you can already light camp fires on Crown land under current legislation, just during the day, I do not know too many people who light camp fires on a daytrip to go shooting or fishing. Camp fires are generally lit when camping overnight, so the increase and therefore the threat of camp fires is certainly going to be more prevalent as a result of this legislation.
Signage will also be very important to make clear where there are flood plain areas. If you envisage families camping, many of whom may not be competent swimmers or campers, you can understand that being caught off guard by flood plain conditions could be catastrophic. I then query where the responsibility lies: with the landowner or the licensee?
Dogs and farm animals do not usually mix unless they are trained to do so. Are there restrictions around people bringing their pets to stay with them overnight? I have spoken to farmers who run cattle farms, with some of this country’s finest Angus bulls being bred—bulls worth more than $20 000—and grazed on such Crown land. So there needs to be thought given to the permissibility of pets and how they interact with cattle or sheep. I suggest that this may be a time-permitted activity given cattle will not necessarily graze on Crown land all year round.
I think it is accepted that inevitably this legislation will entice more large organised groups such as shooting and fishing groups to camp on Crown land. Whilst this is what the legislation no doubt intends to do, this may encourage shooting groups to go out in large numbers in areas where protected species may have been previously untouched and where again the stock, the livelihood of some farmers, are grazing. I just want to flag that most farmers have sheds with expensive machinery, hay, cattle feed and even petrol for the various tractors and machinery. These sheds are not necessarily close to homesteads. Allowing people to camp overnight on Crown land abutting private property and close to sheds could see an increase in farm theft or even arson. I would hope as a result of this legislation passing that we would see farm crime liaison officers trained and resourced appropriately. This is something Ms Maxwell has lobbied for and been very vocal on for some time.
I think it is imperative to recognise that a large number of licensees are within an area of our state that was all but destroyed in the recent summer bushfires. I have spoken with farmers who have lost millions of dollars in cattle and fencing, and to them this is another blow—not because they think they own the Crown land but because as its managers they need to have a say as to how this will work in a practical sense.
In these bushfire-affected areas I think tourism businesses may be affected as an unintended consequence of allowing people access to free camping just up the road from caravan parks or similar. I think that they will probably be booked out this summer nevertheless, but the shoulder seasons may see lower numbers as a result of lifting the prohibition on camping. The Premier expressed wanting to get people back into these communities and increase spending, but this may become more difficult should this bill pass.
Lastly, a permit system of some description would be beneficial for all those taking part in this—farmers, government, organised recreational groups, spontaneous campers et cetera—and we think a permit system enables three critical things. Firstly, a way to communicate expectations for those using Crown land—for example, what penalties apply for leaving rubbish, if endangered species are in the area, where you are and are not allowed to be, safe camp fire practices and more. Secondly, safety strategies—for example, if someone goes missing, but more probably if there were bushfires or similar there would be information for anyone camping in that area. And lastly, it creates accountability for those camping to clean up after themselves and respect the native flora and fauna around them, and if the compliance officers are aware of submitted permits, it narrows down the hundreds of thousands of kilometres they need to constantly visit.
We hope the government will keep these key considerations in mind when creating the regulations that will make this program successful for all stakeholders. In relation to the amendments that were received early this morning and last night and over the last few days, we will be considering all of these in detail and voting according to the best interests of our constituents. I commend this bill to the house.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (13:47): I am pleased to join this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to put on the record constituent concerns. Ms Bath outlined a number of issues from her perspective, and the constituent representations I have had in many ways not surprisingly mirror those of Ms Bath. We recognise and appreciate there are many things in this bill which the opposition supports, and previous speakers have outlined those. I do not wish to speak for more than a few minutes but just wish to put on the record my thanks to particularly constituent farmers who have contacted me and who are concerned about this legislation and the way that the proposed camping on licensed Crown land may operate. I also want to say very clearly that those farmers who have spoken to me have been very understanding and understand 100 per cent the difference between their licence on Crown land and the land they may own freehold.
To me there is an enormous preparedness and willingness from farmers who may be impacted by this legislation to facilitate greater access for the community to be able to camp and do other things on licensed land. I think we all, particularly after this lockdown, recognise the importance of getting to the outdoors, going camping and doing those outdoor activities, and better understanding our environment, our beautiful state and all the rest of it. But the fundamental point is there needs to be a system to be able to regulate that. There needs to be a system to be able to make it safe, as Mr Hayes and a range of speakers from the crossbench as well as the opposition have raised.
From having representations from such a broad number of farmers who are impacted by this, as well as campers and others, there is a preparedness, and indeed they see it as an opportunity, to make this work properly and make it work for everyone. I will not relitigate the issues about stock and safety and rubbish and access and egress across private land to Crown land. All those things are all reasonable. And for most people they will not apply, because most people are reasonable. Most people will talk to the neighbouring landowner and do things in a cooperative way, and Ms Bath cited examples where that already happens. But unfortunately, as we know, there is always that small percentage—5 per cent, 2 per cent, whatever it is—who do not do the right thing, and most of the time in this Parliament we are spending time making rules for those 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent who do not do the right thing. So what the opposition is seeking to do is create a system that facilitates that access, that gives certainty to farmers and the adjoining landowners and gives certainty to those who wish to access the Crown land—to come up with a compromise position.
I think some are seeing this as a political opportunity to wedge the opposition or wedge the minor parties or do this or do that. That is not the way to approach this. This is a process which, if done correctly, can really benefit everyone. I want to thank my colleague the member for Evelyn in the other place, who has undertaken a great deal of consultation with a range of stakeholders. She has driven this amendment that the opposition is proposing. I hope that the government will recognise the reasonableness of those that this aspect of the legislation impacts and their preparedness to find a way that accommodates everyone’s needs and facilitates greater access to public land.
The final thing I will say very briefly is that in my time in this Parliament the Parliament has created more public land—and more public land is a good thing—but what it has not done is create better access to public land. So whilst this bill we are debating is providing access to licensed Crown land on riverfronts and elsewhere that is currently in most cases not used by many members of the public, we have well-established parks and state reserves, particularly across my electorate, where over the years we have seen pathways degraded, access limited, tracks closed off and blackberries and other introduced species run wild, making them harder for members of the community to access in the first instance and enjoy in the second instance, because the environment is degraded, the parks are not maintained and access by people is not encouraged. I have seen that from the outer edges of Melbourne right through to far East Gippsland across my electorate.
So whilst we are looking to do this today, I hope the government will redouble its efforts to also improve access to parks that currently exist which have been in use and have been accessible to the community for a long, long time and for which the maintenance programs, the infrastructure management and the noxious weeds and feral animal management have been very substandard.
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (13:53): There being a late lunch, I might have to continue after the break, I think. Can I thank all the contributors to this bill in the second-reading debate and in particular Mr O’Donohue for giving me time to make it up here. I very much appreciate it. It is very kind of him after I was a bit of a smartypants to him at the end of question time, so what comes around, goes around, it seems.
Mr Finn: He’s a very generous soul.
Mr LEANE: Yes, actually—very kind of him indeed. In response to some of the second-reading speeches I do intend to put on the record, read into the record, a framework around particularly how the regulations will be adopted and what items will be taken into account. I think that is very important, from the conversations. I do foreshadow there are house amendments, and I think it would be good for the house if those amendments were distributed now before the lunchbreak to give people extra time to look at the house amendments.
Government amendments circulated by Mr LEANE pursuant to standing orders.
Mr LEANE: It is really about setting a later date in September next year for more consultation around regulations and also some extra definitions, one of them being of ‘licensed waterfrontage’, which really defines where the regulations can go and hopefully will alleviate some concerns that have been raised during the second-reading debate. It is a good thing, and I am glad that some members have acknowledged that it is a good thing, that there are two new parks established via this bill.
Mr O’Donohue commented on Crown land and the extent of Crown land that has been established during this government. I think it is something the government should be proud of. But I would say that on these licensed riverfronts, the section of them which we are actually debating today has been Crown land, and there have always been a number of activities that have occurred on these stretches of land on riversides, including picnics, fishing and other recreation activities. I think, as Mr Hayes says, there might be different ways that people have accessed them, and some of them might have even been by four-wheel drive or by mountain bike or other things that people really enjoy. So the only addition to land that has not got exclusive use for the licensees and never has had is the ability to camp. There are no changes to any other acts that may govern the privacy or not of those licence-holders. There are no changes to the trespass law and other acts which could be a concern for the licence-holders. Basically what the bill is proposing under an election commitment from our government is that camping will be included on licensed land on riverfrontage.
I will after lunch, I think, read in the overview of what those regulations will be based on and may read in a few other statements to maybe alleviate the concerns of some people before the committee stage. It is up to you, Acting President, but I think a 3-minute-early lunch is in order.
Mr Finn: There is bipartisan support, I might add.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Thank you, Mr Leane. There is support across the chamber for us to break perhaps 2 minutes before 2 o’clock.
Sitting suspended 1.58 pm until 3.04 pm.
Mr LEANE: As I was saying before the lunchbreak—the house amendments were distributed—there are a number of things that the house amendments put into the bill. Obviously the commencement date of the bill, considering that it was introduced into the Assembly quite a while ago, is to be changed to 1 September 2021, and the previous date will be repealed. A really important issue that I think will hopefully give some people comfort is there is a definition of ‘regulated watercourse land’, which will actually be a really important definition when the regulations are created, providing directions to the regulations about what that land particularly is. Then of course there are consequential amendments to the original house amendment, as there always are.
In the time I have got left I would like to put on the record an overview of the intent of the regulations that are to be created. They are intended to establish a clear regulatory framework to govern the use of riverfrontages by prescribing a set of reasonable and responsible behaviours, including tools to assist land managers to manage particular circumstances. It is proposed that the regulations would include provisions aimed at protecting the frontages and their natural and cultural values and water quality, supporting the enjoyment for those using the frontages for recreation and protecting the interests of the licensees. The regulations would complement other laws dealing with particular matters, which has been a concern, but there are no changes to the laws on things like trespassing on freehold land, fire protection, domestic animals and firearms; there are no changes whatsoever.
To establish the appropriate behaviours, it is proposed that the regulations will establish appropriate behaviours for visitors to waterfrontages relating to, for example, protecting vegetation and managing the collection and use of firewood; disposal of human waste, soap and detergent; and the removal of personal belongings. I know that has been a concern touched on in the second-reading debate, and it is clearly proposed that this will be dealt with in the regulations. The regulations will also cover camping, including prohibiting camping within 20 metres of a waterway, as applies to state forests and national parks now, in revegetation areas or in other areas set aside where camping may be prohibited; protecting visitor enjoyment—an example is maintaining good order, which was a concern as well; and protecting licensees’ interests, which obviously is not interfering with cattle or structures. These are things that happen now when people use this land for fishing and for picnicking and other things like that. If a gate was closed it stays closed, and if it was open it stays open, as far as the management for the licensees goes.
On managing fire risks, it is proposed that the regulations will prohibit campfires in revegetation areas and enable other areas to be set aside. Where camp fires are actually permitted, the Forests (Fire Protection) Regulations 2014 and the fire offences in the Forests Act 1958 would naturally also apply. As I said, there are a number of acts covering these concerns, and they will not be altered one bit with the passing of this bill.
Other parts of the regulations that would need to be structured involve the empowering of authorised officers. It is proposed that the regulations will set out the powers of authorised officers to enforce regulations to direct people to leave a frontage for safety reasons. ‘Authorised officers’ include authorised employees of the Victorian Fisheries Authority, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and of course Parks Victoria. Also, the regulations will provide tools to assist these managers. It is proposed that these regulations will allow land managers to manage particular circumstances, enabling the temporary closure of a waterfrontage because of an emergency; areas to be set aside where particular activities may or may not be prohibited; and areas to be set aside where access is prohibited or restricted for particular reasons—for example, to protect specific natural or cultural values or, as I said before, for public safety or biosecurity reasons.
The regulations work around the context that many riverfrontages are less than 200 metres in width. The intention of the changes is to make it clear that regulations will apply up to 200 metres from a watercourse. In the house amendments we have defined ‘watercourse’. And it is likely too that within the riverfront area camping is likely to occur. This distance is consistent with the provisions that define ‘area of cultural heritage sensitivity’ in relation to waterways in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. And if a Crown land riverfrontage happens to be wider than 200 metres, the existing framework remains. I will leave my contribution at that, and Dr Ratnam and the opposition have moved their amendments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): The question is that the amendment moved by Dr Ratnam to the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Davis be agreed to.
Mr Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, if I can just be clear with the chamber, I think there needs to be a little more explanation to that, with the greatest of respect, because I suspect there are only about four of us in the chamber who have pieced together what is happening just now. I think what Dr Ratnam is proposing is to amend the reasoned amendment that we have proposed. The reasoned amendment that we have proposed is that there be an inquiry by the Environment and Planning Committee with a series of terms of reference and a report in six months. That is driven by a concern about consultation and other matters which have been outlined in the second-reading debate. Dr Ratnam, without trying to put words in your mouth, as I see it, you are concerned about consultation on a number of levels and other matters but not necessarily an inquiry, and you want a reasoned amendment because of that. Again, without saying anything further, which is perhaps your purview, Acting President, the truth is I do not think I have seen this procedure occur before, and if people vote for Dr Ratnam’s amendment to our reasoned amendment, it will effectively delete the inquiry. I think that is a fair summary, isn’t it?
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Thank you, Mr Davis. Just for the clarity of the house, this matter has been discussed with the clerks, and after the deliberation of the clerks this is the way that they have decided that this ought to be proceeded with.
Mr Davis: On the point of order, Acting President, I am just trying to make it clear to people what they are actually voting on, and that was not clear.
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): They are voting on Dr Ratnam’s amendment to the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Davis. If Dr Ratnam’s amendment fails, then I will put the question on Mr Davis’s reasoned amendment. Is everyone clear?
House divided on Dr Ratnam’s amendment:
| Ayes, 3 | ||
| Cumming, Dr | Hayes, Mr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Noes, 32 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Kieu, Dr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Shing, Ms |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Stitt, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Crozier, Ms | Maxwell, Ms | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Taylor, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Finn, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Quilty, Mr | |
Amendment negatived.
House divided on Mr Davis’s amendment:
| Ayes, 14 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Grimley, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Ratnam, Dr |
| Cumming, Dr | Maxwell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | |
| Noes, 21 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Symes, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Mr Davis: On a point of order, Deputy President, I just wonder if it might be helpful for the committee if our amended amendments were circulated. There is just a small change in the order, and I will just explain that to the house and circulate them. They have literally just come now.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Davis. It might, yes.
Mr Davis: These are our amendments to clause 49, and they have the precise same intent as we outlined in the second-reading debate, but instead of inserting a new clause they actually amend clause 49 to require the licensee to give permission for camping. That is all they do, and it has been done in this form after discussion with parliamentary counsel. They then fit snugly and neatly into the clause rather than being a new clause inserted. I just thought it would be easier for people if they were circulated now.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I ask that Mr Davis’s amendments be circulated.
Clause 1 (15:29)
Mr BOURMAN: Minister, given I have not got a copy of any of the regulatory stuff that you read in before, I apologise if this does cut across a bit of it. One of the concerns, and it is a legitimate concern, from everyone is about facilities at places where people are going to camp. What has the government got in mind to make sure that we do not just have people camping in a bare paddock, for want of a better term? Are we going to be putting in sanitation facilities and that sort of thing?
Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Bourman. Regarding the regulations, as I said, it was important that I read them into the record. I am happy to get everyone a copy of what I read around the framework of how the regulations will be structured. If I could go over the summary around your question, which is on establishing appropriate behaviours, which you are concerned with. It is proposed that the regulations will establish appropriate behaviours for visitors to a waterfrontage relating to, for example, protecting vegetation; managing the collection and use of firewood; disposal of human waste, soap and detergents; and removing personal belongings. The regulations will also cover camping, including prohibited camping within 20 metres of a waterway, as applies in state forests and national forests, in revegetation areas or in other areas set aside where camping is prohibited; protecting visitor enjoyment; and protecting licensees.
I think as far as you are concerned around someone camping in the middle of a paddock a long way away from the river’s edge, it is hard to completely define that. That is why in the house amendments, to give everyone comfort around that, there is a determination around ‘regulated watercourse’ and land, which is inserted for the purpose of defining in a more precise way Crown land near a watercourse where regulations governing recreational use will apply. So according to that definition, if your example is that there are people in the middle of the paddock of cows within a kilometre or half a kilometre of a watercourse, that would not be termed part of that watercourse.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister. Maybe I did not ask the question correctly. There will be more people camping legally. Is the government going to fund things like toilet blocks and rubbish collection? Basically, whoever needs to have the funding increased to cover that, are they going to get that?
Mr LEANE: I understand there is an increase to fisheries, but I will get you the exact number.
Mr Bourman, around concerns in terms of funding, there was a package around the Victorian Fisheries Authority that was quite substantial that would cover a number of areas, including these ones. But the idea around being able to camp on these particular pieces of land near riverfronts is that they would be dispersible camp sites similar to some of the parks and some of the forests where people will set up and then disperse, and those areas will not have toilet blocks as such.
In saying that, it is the way that a lot of people do enjoy it in the way they can. The goal of the election commitment was to make camping affordable for everyone. As you will appreciate, Mr Bourman, some camping sites that may have those sorts of facilities do come at a cost to be there. Even without camping the expense of going on a holiday and staying on the premises is quite a lot financially for some people, so we are trying to make it easier and more affordable for more people to be able to camp.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister. Going back to the last Parliament I think the government started a whole thing on free camping, even though at some places there were levels of facilities. I understand what you are saying about dispersed camping; not everyone wants to go and camp, effectively, in a caravan park, but I think at least the litter collection and that will need to be at least monitored, which brings me to my next question. Once we have got the regulations, how is the government intending on enforcing these regulations? Are there going to be extra people hired by the various agencies that will now be able to enforce this?
Mr LEANE: Yes, there is information in the bill around authorised officers, but I will get you an answer from the box.
Mr Bourman, as far as the authorised officers to regulate this type of use of the land go, they will come from authorised officers from fisheries, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and Parks Victoria. The good news is that there will be developed by, particularly, fisheries, a code of conduct, there will be an education program and there will be advertising. There will also be an app, which will identify if someone is camping on a Crown licensee’s land or otherwise, or in a national park. All of that will go towards an education program around basically doing the right thing by everyone. I think on the whole the campers that we spoke about before are more than happy to adhere to all of that.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister. I noted when I was reading the Hansard that when the bill was in the Assembly there was also a bit of talk about the mapping and all that to make sure that people are actually able to figure out where they are camping. Has that mapping been finalised? Is it in progress?
Mr LEANE: Mr Bourman, DELWP actually has a tool already which identifies Crown land and other land. So that particular mapping is developed, and that will be the data that fisheries will use to develop their app. So I think the answer to your question is: yes, it has been well developed and that is what is actually going to be used for people to be able to, hopefully on their iPhones, get into their app and check that.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister. I would think that someone has at least done a study into the increase in the amount of people heading to these areas. Has anyone got a ballpark figure of what we are going to see as an increase in visitors to regional areas who are not doing so now?
Mr LEANE: Mr Bourman, I will see if there is a definitive response, also taking into account that for these particular pieces of Crown land near riverfronts the licensees have never had exclusive rights anyway. So there have been people—
Mr Bourman interjected.
Mr LEANE: Yes. They are already using it. But in saying that, I will see if there are any figures around the increase.
Mr Bourman, the Victorian government is committed to encouraging family and friends to spend time together in the outdoors. The intention of the bill is to make it easier for families to go camping on Crown land. In some areas removing the legislative prohibition on camping on riverfronts will simply regularise the camping activity that has taken place over many years. In other areas, such as sites where access to frontage is improved, it may encourage more camping, but there is nothing quantitative. There has been no quantitative work on what may end up as the numbers.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Minister. Fair enough. If you believe those from the opposition, campers are a disastrous bunch of drunken hooligans that seem to shoot everything and defecate anywhere. If this goes ahead, obviously we have got other places where people can camp in similar conditions. Is there an ongoing trend of problem behaviour there?
Mr LEANE: Mr Bourman, there is absolutely no evidence of existing campers behaving in the way that you described whatsoever, so I refer to my answer to the previous question around the people that want to access this type of camping. Actually it is affordable, and they have to be geared up in a certain way to be able to camp in that fashion. The purpose of this part of the bill—there are other purposes in this bill, and one of them is to establish a couple of parks, which we think is a great thing, but this is one other great thing about this bill—is to make more affordable camping available for everyone.
Mr HAYES: Minister, just possibly a comment on what you were saying on numbers: you were saying there are already campers using these areas; that is under the conditions whereby it is presently not legal to camp there. This bill will make it legal, so you would imagine there would be quite a few more people practising camping in these areas once it is made legal. The other thing that I would like to point out to you is that Victoria is planning to double its population in the next 30 years under the planning scheme, so you would imagine you would have at least double the number of campers in those conditions. That is probably just a comment because I can see the government is pretty much holding to its line that there will not be many more than are already camping.
I wanted to ask a question about what you were saying about toilet facilities, and I think that it is a bit of a concern that a lot more people will be going into bush area where you say there will not be things like composting or drop toilets provided. Where they are often provided in state forests and other national park sort of areas now for camping use, they will not be in these bush areas. I will just go to toilet facilities first of all. Are we going to be providing education to campers on how to dig latrine toilets and things like that? A lot of campers do not know the basics of this. I go camping quite often, and very few people take a spade and things like that that are necessary—unless they are seasoned campers. The other thing is the collection of firewood, which is banned and heavily regulated in most camping areas now. Will people be told to bring their own firewood, or will they be let loose with chainsaws in the bush to collect their own firewood and burn it? So just on those two things, toilets and firewood, if you would.
Mr LEANE: If I can work backwards on Mr Hayes’s questions and comments. Similar to the answer that I gave to Mr Bourman, it is expected that these camping sites will be demountable camping sites where everyone sets up, including the toilet facilities and other facilities as well. The answer to your question—similar to my answer to Mr Bourman—is that there will be a high-level education campaign, which includes an app, and all those directions about the best practices to be able to do those sorts of things and to do the right thing by everyone, including the environment, will be in that education program.
I think the example we gave before about this type of camping is happening in Crown land. It is not necessarily this type of Crown land. This type of Crown land, as you would well know with the bill, has been available for people to fish, picnic and do other recreational activities anyway. This is just one aspect that is added to this particular type of Crown land. But I am happy to put on the record, as I have said to Mr Bourman, that there will be a high-level education program, and I think that will be a good thing—probably even for people that are camping in areas other than this, that are already doing it. I think it is really a good thing anyway to do.
Ms BATH: Minister, I have a number of questions about different parts of this particular bill. One of them picks up on the theme that we have had so far in talking about defecation close to our waterways, rivers and lakes that will be impacted by the extension of what is there and by camping overnight. Now, when someone comes for the day, sometimes it is very clear that by not staying overnight they are not going to be imparting as much of their body in terms of leaving it there as they would when they are staying overnight and camping for a number of days. It is environmentally destructive and also illegal to defecate, apparently, within 100 metres of a river or to use soap within 50 metres of a river. In terms of Crown land, we are talking about 20 metres or a little bit more. What advice has the government received in terms of the potential risk to the environment? Who has the government talked to about potential risk to the environment in relation to this pollution?
Mr LEANE: Ms Bath, I will get a response from the box about which particular groups have been consulted with around your particular concern. The response I just gave to Mr Hayes was that I think it is actually a good thing that the government does embark on quite a high-level education program around all these issues, including where people may leave their waste. I think it is a good thing because I wonder if people go on a day-long fishing trip whether they have the fortitude to not expend waste, and that is the situation now. So on this land, which is afforded to people without even changing the bill—
Mr Davis interjected.
Mr LEANE: I think you are right; it is not monitoring, so it is not okay now. If someone is going to spend 12 hours in the daylight—and some people actually keep fishing at night, depending on what is biting—I would say there is an issue now, and I think the education is a good thing to actually tackle that. But as far as the consultation goes I will check with—I was going to call them the boffins, but I cannot do that—the box.
Just further to the response that I gave you earlier, there already are regulations around human waste on Crown land at similar sorts of camping sites that will be, as I said, demountable-type camping sites now. The consultation has been had with a lot of areas already in that process, but this is why we are pleased that with the house amendment we will push the consultation out as far as the regulations go. With the current regulations on Crown land, if anyone has any suggestions to actually improve them, this is a good period of time, up until September, to be able to work towards that, to ensure that we get best practice in terms of these changes to camping being available on that particular type of Crown land.
Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. Continuing on this theme in relation to the impacts, I am assuming that the government believes that there will be more people hours out by the rivers with this bill. Would that be correct?
Mr LEANE: The object of this part of the bill is to make camping more affordable and available to all Victorians and, for that matter, interstate visitors if they desire, so I think the answer to your question is: the objective is that we would like to see more people camping in our great state along our beautiful scenic rivers.
Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. It therefore goes to my concern in relation to a point I raised in my substantive debate on this, and it relates to diseases that can be inflicted on livestock, such as bovine measles, which can occur from animals eating human faeces. So I am interested to know with the increased proportionality of that being on the ground and in the soil have you also had advice from Agriculture Victoria or any other organisations—CSIRO or the like—that would be concerned and have a position on biosecurity or animal welfare and stock welfare? Have you talked to the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) about these particular concerns?
Mr LEANE: Yes, Ms Bath, I think that the education program and the regulations will be done in a way that will support this particular issue—how people deal with their human waste in these particular areas so that it is done, as I said, in accord with best practice that supports all agriculture and the environment and also our native flora and fauna. But for the advice as far as bovine measles goes, I will talk to the box.
On the consultation with the VFF, Minister Horne in her responsibility for this bill met with the VFF I think the day before yesterday or yesterday. Vic fisheries has had a number of consultations with the VFF, and we respect the VFF and the work they do and the people they represent. Of course, as I said before, in the development of the regs the government will consult across government in all portfolios, and the VFF will have the opportunity to discuss the concerns that you broached then and work towards, as I said, best practice and the best education program that can be imparted to the community.
Ms BATH: Thanks, Minister. What I am going to hear all afternoon, I am sure, is to respect that, in effect, ‘We’re doing this, and then we’ll tell you about it later and then we’ll consult later’, whereas I believe that there should have been a great deal more consultation on this particular position, this bill, before going through. I feel that many people who have spoken to me are in the same position and have the same concerns.
My next question goes to fire and the concern in relation to bushfires, and we know in all the parts of eastern Victoria the devastating fires that have occurred in the summer. Every year there is human involvement in fires, and indeed there was a fire preparedness inquiry back in the last Parliament—
Mr Davis: A very good inquiry.
Ms BATH: Yes, it was. And one of the investigations came out and I think found that around—I am doing this from memory—70 per cent of fires actually come from human intervention. Some of them are arson, but many of them are unintended through left camp sites or unwatched camp sites. So I have some concerns about that. Irrespective of whether we agree with this part—and we want to see farmers have their say on whether or not people can come onto their land to camp overnight—all of us in here should be concerned around fires spreading, so I want to understand: what has the government done in terms of, again, consultation with the CFA, Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, DELWP and other emergency management? Also, Minister, I want you to discuss the types of fires that are appropriate to be on the side of a river where people are camping. Are they specified? Is it a metre? Two metres? What is the height and size of those fires that are applicable? And I am expecting that the government has given some thought to this.
Mr LEANE: Yes, Ms Bath, so far as the consultation with those different groups goes, I will check with the advisers box. I think as far as your commentary around consulting afterwards goes, I did actually say in answer to your previous questions that ministers, departments and the Victorian Fisheries Authority have consulted with VFF and other groups. As far as fire goes, I did put on the public record around this particular concern of yours what will be in the framework of what the outcome of the regulations will be, and I will just read that part in again.
As far as managing fire risk goes it is proposed that the regulations will prohibit camp fires in revegetation areas and enable other areas to be set aside where camp fires are also prohibited. The Forests (Fire Protection) Regulations 2014 and the fire offences in the Forests Act 1958 will also apply. So this bill does not alter those particular important acts and the regime that they implement. But as far as the consultation goes, I will get back to you.
Ms Bath, there is a commitment that everyone concerned—the organisations, groups, departments and so forth that you mentioned—will be involved in this consultation on developing the regulations, as I prescribed they need to be. We put on the public record that that is the framework that they will be part of. The starting point is that there is already existing Crown land where these types of activities occur. As I have mentioned, those particular acts will apply, but that is the starting point. If there can be more safeguards in the regulations other than those acts, some of which have served for quite a while, the consultation around the regulations will be more than open to that.
Ms BATH: Thank you, Minister. I move to funding and resources. The government, I would anticipate, in putting this bill forward, in organising and looking at it, would have done some costings around the additional resources required to oversight, have policing and have various authorised officers implement and police these new overnight camping excursions and stays, so I am interested to understand what additional funding and resources the government will put into this as a result of this new camping.
Mr LEANE: Thanks, Ms Bath. I will also check with the box around any definitive answer I can give you, but the act does describe authorised officers, and there are a number of authorised officers that can have oversight of this particular form of camping, which as I said also happens now, but I will just check with the box.
Fisheries officers will be a big part of the oversight of this particular type of camping given that it is adjacent to riverfronts or riversides, if that is the terminology, and being authorised officers, they are also authorised to enforce that rules for things like camp fires, litter and waste are actually adhered to under a number of those existing acts that I mentioned and also under any regulations that exist now or regulations that will be developed to further support this type of activity.
Ms BATH: Minister, in relation to the VFA, the Victorian Fisheries Authority, Ms Symes, in an email back to one of her constituents, who raised many concerns with me, has responded by saying:
The Victorian Fisheries Authority would install gates and signage to Crown land entry points to help people access these areas …
Now, I seek to get an understanding; I think there are something around 170 000, is it linear, kilometres—it is a long way—of riverfrontage; I will just put it in that context, Minister. So I seek to understand (a) over what period of time, the quantum that they think they will need and the cost of them, because it seems to me to be an enormous amount of installed gates and signage. And what will be the process to liaise with the Crown land licence holders?
Mr LEANE: I am loath to comment on an email from a member, as far as the details of that go. But as far as signage and other activity go, as I mentioned before in answer to questions from a number of members in this committee, the Victorian Fisheries Authority are going to embark on a very large education program which will include development of an app and other educational tools, and signage, I assume, would be part of that.
Ms MAXWELL: I have to say, I think I am going to go and invest in shares in portaloo companies with this. Minister, once the bill passes, will there be any legal liability for unexpected or dangerous incidents that may occur on Crown land, and if so, with whom would that legal liability lie?
Mr LEANE: I suppose, if I could clarify, Ms Maxwell, you would like to include that answer—whether the actual licensees would have some liability as well? So I will check with the box.
Ms Maxwell, as far as liability goes if someone actually tries to take any action against any party, like a lot of areas it is considered on a case-by-case basis. In terms of someone on Crown land having an incident that has nothing to do with the licensee, it would take a great lawyer to be able to tie that particular person into it. But in saying that, as part of the licence agreement it is recommended that licensees do have public liability insurance. In these areas there are already activities. I think you can probably hurt yourself more fishing on a bank or riding your mountain bike through these particular areas than you can if you are actually sleeping in a tent—I hope. I do not know. That is only an assumption.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. I am also a camper and a fisher, but we know how dangerous those gum trees can often be when you are camping down in those areas. Bearing that in mind, if there were actually property owners down working on that part of the property and somebody was to become injured, somebody who was camping there, would any workplace manslaughter laws come into play? That is something that I know my constituents have raised with me and have had considerable concern about.
Mr LEANE: Ms Maxwell, I will seek further advice, but I suppose on these particular parts of Crown land that we are discussing the licensees have never actually had exclusive rights from their licences, and there have been activities—as I said, a number of recreational activities that the general public has been afforded, given that it is Crown land. I think we should all probably have some sort of agreement about that premise. I think in this instance it is really hard to separate the activities now compared to the activities that we are discussing, but I will just check with the box to see if they have anything for me.
Part of the development of the regulations and the education program will be the development of a code of conduct for the people who are using this land as well, so I think that is a really important exercise. There have never been exclusive rights, but under the advice I have so far as licensees being liable for workplace manslaughter, the answer is no in that instance.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. What will be the process for monitoring any degradation of the riverfrontage and if there are required clean-ups? Will a licence-holder be able to register for a clean-up with DELWP or the relevant body?
Mr LEANE: As I answered in the previous question, fisheries officers have the ability to request that sites are cleaned so far as litter is concerned, and also other areas are actually authorised to implement that and enforce that, as well as enforcing if someone has caught too many snapper or something like that, and I know that is a serious issue too. But as far as registering goes, I will check with the box.
The advice I have is that the VFA has a 24-hour hotline that anyone can contact to register a concern around any of the issues that you foreshadowed, and that can happen now. Of course being Crown land and a riverfront it is a responsibility of the state—its upkeep and remedy if there needs to be any.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. Ms Bath raised the policing of the waters. Does any of this coincide with the extra water police announced I think it was last week or the week before? Will they be seen more on our waterways?
Mr LEANE: The answer to Ms Maxwell’s question is that there does not seem to be any involvement of extra water police. They will report back to DELWP and VFA and the traditional authorities that are currently doing that.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Minister. I know my husband used to enjoy being in the water police. Minister, just my final question: on the campaign that will be done, obviously, to raise awareness and support farmers, leaseholders et cetera, is there any possibility that the campaign will also include the dangers of rivers and drowning considering that in the last few years we have had a significant number of drownings? It is great to have people there on a day basis fishing and having a swim, but when you get people camping and having a few drinks, some people who are new to those areas may not know the dangers.
Mr LEANE: Ms Maxwell, that will absolutely be a key message as part of the education program. It is already a key message in some areas about fishing and waterways and rivers. I think I remember you mentioning in this chamber before that rivers could probably be highlighted a bit more as far as the dangers of swimming go. I can tell you that it will definitely be one of the key planks of the education program.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, can you tell me how many fisheries officers there are currently and what will be the increased number to accommodate this new proposal?
Mr LEANE: Mrs McArthur, there are about 120 fisheries officers. But in saying that, there are also a number of authorised officers in a number of different departments, including Parks Vic and DELWP, and also environmental officers who are all authorised officers to ensure that the components of concern around camping—whether it be the current camping on Crown land or any increased camping on Crown land—adhere to the acts and regulations and future regulations.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. Well, Minister, the current authorised officers that we have managing many of these parks and forests—even the Twelve Apostles—seem to be woefully inadequate for the job they do and the outcomes that we see every day. What will be the increased number, and how will they better service their responsibilities?
Mr LEANE: I will take the first part of Mrs McArthur’s question as a comment, because that would be her opinion about what might be inadequate or not. That is a debate that does not relate to the bill. As I put on the record, there are at least 120 fisheries officers that are authorised officers. There are a number of authorised officers in other jurisdictions and other departments that have the authority to regulate and ensure that all activities are done in adherence with the regulations, acts and future regulations.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. Minister, you have told us that the aim of this particular area of this bill is to provide affordable, free, cheap camping for people. Why can’t you just give a voucher or whatever to the camp sites that the government currently controls, or Parks Victoria controls, instead of having the farmers effectively provide the free camping?
Mr LEANE: What we are implementing as part of this bill is actually an election commitment that the government took to the electorate, which includes things like the establishment of the two new parks. The provisions that Mrs McArthur has suggested were not part of that particular election commitment. In terms of farmers providing recreational land for camping or fishing or anything, this Crown land is part of a licence that does not involve exclusive rights for the licensee. Crown land is available for a number of activities, and all we are doing in implementing this particular bill is giving people the opportunity to choose to camp overnight or longer if the fish are biting or the recreation they are enjoying they would like to enjoy for a day or two further.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, who will police the border between the Crown land and the farming land where people will be camping?
Mr LEANE: Mrs McArthur, as I have mentioned, there are a number of different authorised officers, which include those from the Victorian Fisheries Authority but also from DELWP and from Parks Victoria and other particular government departments. They will be ensuring that regulations and acts are adhered to, as they do now. As I said in an answer to Ms Maxwell, I think that farmers would have every right to contact that 24-hour concern line. I am not going to call it a complaints line, because they are genuine concerns. They will be able to get the attention of someone on the end of the phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to request the assistance of an authorised officer to ensure that, as we have prescribed in this legislation, the regulations and future regulations are adhered to.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, that sounds totally impractical and impossible, because you have got about 170 000 kilometres of waterways and you have got hundreds of officers. It would be practically impossible for them to be available 24/7 to be policing where people should and should not be camping—where the boundary of the few metres is on Crown land to farmland. So that actually is not going to happen, is it?
Mr LEANE: I might just take that as a comment as well. I think part of the way forward is that, as I stated, there is going to be quite a large education program around all types of Crown land but in particular this particular use of Crown land, where there are licensees that do not have exclusive rights to that land. As I have stated, there is a 24-hour hotline. Taking into account a statement that Mr Bourman made, I do not think that every person that likes to go and camp, set up a demountable camp site and spend a few days enjoying nature actually has any ill intent to the environment, to the land that might be adjacent to a lessee or the general public. So I would say I think that, Mrs McArthur, you might be taking quite a pessimistic view about a practice that is already happening on other Crown land as well.
Mrs McARTHUR: Minister, I presume the government has done an environmental impact statement on the effects on the native fauna with the advent of people actually camping overnight on these waterway sites.
Mr LEANE: As I said, we are introducing an amendment that puts back the regulations until September next year to give people an opportunity to have input, particularly if it is members of the public concerned about environmental impacts. I think everyone should do that, but I will check if there is any further information I can give you.
Mrs McArthur, if I could just follow up on your previous question, I have some good news. I think you quoted there was 170 kilometres of riverfront that this particular bill would be concerned with that would need to be regulated and authorised officers would need to keep an eye on. It is actually only 30 kilometres in this particular area that is Crown land that has these lease arrangements. A lot of this 30 kilometres covers licensed land where there is stock like cattle, where there would not be any great deal of environmentally sensitive areas because of the cattle, but the regulations will definitely be worked to exclude anything inside that 30 kilometres that is culturally sensitive and anything that is environmentally sensitive as well.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. I am pleased you have raised the issue of cattle, because in many cattle enterprises they have EU accreditation, which requires enforcement of very strict biosecurity protocols. How will the government be involved if these biosecurity protocols are breached by people camping in areas where the cattle are? In fact nobody can actually enter a property that has EU accreditation without strict biosecurity protocols being enforced. How will this piece of legislation interact with that issue?
Mr LEANE: I will get further information from the advisers box, but I would say that this is licensed land where there are already members of the public doing recreational activities such as picnicking, fishing and a number of recreational activities. They are interacting with these particular enterprises because the people that license this land would like to utilise that particular part of Crown land for their enterprise as well. That is why they pay a small fee for their licences, and it is a good thing. But I will check if there is anything more I can add to answer your question.
Mrs McArthur, I think the answer is basically as I said—that there is already a starting point in terms of the activities that are happening on this particular type of licensed land and interaction between members of the public and the enterprise. But as far as the implementation of the regulations and the policies goes, this concern around biosecurity will be looked at in consultation with the Victorian Farmers Federation to identify if there are any more risks. As I said, there are already a number of regulations and laws around a lot of the concerns that have been aired in committee today. As I said, they are in place; there will be a starting point. During the development of the regulations this is one area that will be further looked into, and if there needs to be improvement and ability to safeguard things and address that concern any further, I am sure those conversations will be fruitful.
Mrs McARTHUR: How will a farmer differentiate between a genuine camper and an animal activist if they come onto this area of land with their camping equipment?
Mr LEANE: It goes back to the basis of the answers I have given to questions on a number of concerns. There are already acts around trespassing and other concerns in place. This bill does not alter those acts whatsoever. I would say that if someone has been clearly identified as breaching something like the trespass act and other acts then I think they will be clearly identified and will be liable to be charged under the particular acts that are already in place. As I said, I think the intent of the majority of people that would like to utilise this land a bit further is to actually do the right thing, to look after the land and to just enjoy the scenery maybe just one or two nights longer than they already are.
Mrs McARTHUR: As Ms Bath said in her speech, we are not accounting for 99 per cent probably of the people that do the right thing; we are trying to accommodate the 1 per cent that may do the wrong thing. This extra access escalates the ability for more people to perhaps do the wrong thing, and if you increase the numbers exponentially that will potentially occur. This is a serious issue that we identified in the animal activist inquiry. It is impossible actually to get police on the spot in any speedy fashion when you need them to embark on reprimanding people that are doing the wrong thing. We are talking about places that are quite distant from where even one of your officers might be, let alone the police force, I imagine. Anyway, by way of comment, that is fine.
Mr LEANE: I move:
1. Clause 1, page 2, lines 14 to 16, omit “in respect of licensed and unlicensed water frontages” and insert “for recreational uses of certain land abutting watercourses”.
I appreciate that it is a test for those consequential amendments 3 to 8. I will just put on the record that the amendment does change the implementation date to do more consultation and give more consideration around the creation of regulations. I did put on the public record in my second-reading speech what the framework and considerations of the regulations will be. Also it inserts a term around the regulated watercourse land for the purposes of defining a more precise way that the Crown land near a watercourse where regulations govern recreational use will apply. For particular Crown land there will be some exclusions, such as leased land within 200 metres of the watercourse. Hopefully these amendments will alleviate some concerns, and I hope that the house would agree to them.
Mr DAVIS: The opposition is not going to oppose these amendments, but I do think the government owes the house some clear explanation as to why a bill dated 2019 is in the chamber now and it was only yesterday that certainly the opposition and indeed I think other members in the chamber did not see the amendments until they were actually circulated this afternoon. I just think it would be helpful to the house to know why—they are quite significant amendments that make significant changes—the government has brought this on at such a late point in the cycle.
Mr LEANE: Mr Davis, you mentioned the bill was introduced in 2019. Unfortunately 2020—
Mr Davis: I understand.
Mr LEANE: No, I think we all understand. Unfortunately 2020 has not been a brilliant year in terms of the global pandemic and the way we have had to run this place in both chambers. It is not unusual for a bill to be introduced into the Assembly and take some time to make it to this house. As I said, these amendments are designed to give more time for more consultation around the regulations and also define some of the definitions, which we hope would further alleviate any concerns around the implementation of the bill. Mr Davis, sometimes amendments can come to the house late. I know this morning I was quite surprised. I did not know you were going to move a reasoned amendment to go with this bill today—
Mr Davis interjected.
Mr LEANE: Well, let us call it even, because I was actually quite surprised when you came in with your reasoned amendment that you had not flagged with us until you imparted it in your second-reading speech. But we believe, no matter what the timeline, that this bill is there to give people more time for consultation around the regulations and to define some definitions that may give certain stakeholders a bit more comfort around what will be determined when the regulations are created.
Mr DAVIS: By way of comment and response, and not necessarily expecting the minister to answer, as it were, I just want to put on record that we think the government could have brought these substantial amendments through quite a lot earlier. It would have enabled the opposition and minor parties to consult more broadly. It would have meant that indeed we would have had the capacity to do that. The government, with all of the massive resources of departments, chose to bring these to the opposition late yesterday and indeed not to some of the crossbench at all. We do not think it is right. The consultation that is occurring, or that you are flagging in the amendments will occur, on the regulations and go out until September and so forth we understand is helpful, but the fact is that on a number of these things it would have been better if there was consultation beforehand rather than just the regulations going forward later.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister will just take that as a comment.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (16:43)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I invite you to move your amendment 2, which is a test for your amendment 9.
Mr LEANE: I move:
2. Clause 2, line 16, omit “December 2020” and insert “September 2021”.
I appreciate that the Deputy President has flagged that this amendment will be a test for amendment 9 as well.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 3 to 35 agreed to.
New clause (16:44)
Mr LEANE: I move:
3. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 35—
‘35A Definitions
In section 2A of the Land Act 1958—
(a) insert the following definitions—
“licensed water frontage means water frontage which is under a licence under Division 8 of Part I or section 138;
municipal council has the same meaning as Council has in the Local Government Act 2020;
Parks Victoria has the same meaning as in the Parks Victoria Act 2018;
regulated watercourse land means Crown land within 200 metres of the bank of a watercourse within the meaning of Part XII which is not any one or more of the following—
(a) under a lease or a residence area right;
(b) vested in trustees or in a municipal council;
(c) placed under the control of a public authority other than the Secretary or Parks Victoria;
(d) land in respect of which a committee of management has been appointed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978;
water frontage means Crown land (including land temporarily or permanently reserved)—
(a) which has a frontage to the sea or a watercourse within the meaning of Part XII; and
(b) which is not under a lease, licence or residence area right; and
(c) which is not reserved as a water reserve along any public road under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978; and
(d) which is not—
(i) vested in trustees or in a municipal council; or
(ii) placed under the control of a public authority other than Parks Victoria; or
(iii) land in respect of which a committee of management has been appointed under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.”;
(b) in the definition of Traditional Owner Land Management Board, for “1987.” substitute “1987;”.’.
Amendment 3 inserts a new clause with additional definitions in a section of the Land Act 1958.
New clause agreed to.
Clause 36 (16:44)
Mr LEANE: I move:
4. Clause 36, lines 5 to 10, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—
‘In section 3(1) of the Land Act 1958—
(a) the definitions of fence, Parks Victoria and water frontage are repealed;
(b) in the definition of unused road, for “400(1);” substitute “400(1).”.’.
Amendment 4 just repeals and changes some current definitions to adhere to this particular bill—definitions in the Land Act 1958.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 37 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 (16:46)
Mr DAVIS: Now, these amendments have been slightly amended from the one that we circulated earlier in the week—they have exactly the same effect—after discussion with parliamentary counsel. I will just reiterate what I said earlier: this amends the clause rather than inserts a new clause, but the practical effect is the same. What this does was outlined in the second-reading speech. It is very straightforward. We think that those licence-holders should have the ability to say no to camping and should have the ability to work with campers to get a better outcome. It is fairer. It will deal with many of the issues that have been discussed in the second-reading debate. I move:
1. Clause 49, line 25, before “Subject” insert “(1)”.
2. Clause 49, line 28, omit “purposes.”.” and insert “purposes.”.
3. Clause 49, after line 28 insert—
‘(2) Despite subsection (1), a person must not camp on a licensed water frontage unless the person has obtained permission from the licensee.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.”.’.
It is very straightforward, as I said, and what it will ensure is that there is consultation and that there is some mechanism to manage these problems. As I said in the second-reading debate, part of this is about striking a balance. It is appropriate that there be more opportunities for campers, but at the same time that needs to not be leaving aside the problems and the concerns of those who are managing the land close to the waterway. There have been significant points made by the VFF and other farmers organisations about the impact on cattle, and I do not need to go through the list that was so heavily discussed in the second-reading debate. But the risk of fire, the risk of human waste of various types and all of those issues have not been we think sufficiently dealt with by government, and none of us are assured that the government has got a good way forward on this. We think this strikes a fair balance, and we will seek to ensure that people who do want to camp are able to do so with the approval of the licence-holder.
Mr BOURMAN: I might ask Mr Davis a couple of questions, if I may. Mr Davis, with this it is a case of the licensee being able to say who can and cannot camp there. Should the licensee say that someone can camp there and the camper, whatever they do, does something particularly wrong, would that not make the licensee, because they have given permission for that person—they have been the gatekeeper—liable for whatever they did?
Mr DAVIS: I do not believe so. That is certainly not the advice that we have, and we did talk about that.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Mr Davis. I would not bet my own house on that one. But, anyway, I will bring us to the point of the actual practicalities of this. Someone is going to have to get the details of the licensee to contact them to get permission, or not. How do you envisage that working?
Mr DAVIS: I think in many cases it will be straightforward, and the reality is that there is often a property that has actually some visible presence. Indeed in many cases, as you heard in the second-reading debate, there is concern that camping may happen in a way that is not managed and that may actually cause difficulties for stock and for the property owner, with sheds and with other matters—and, also as outlined, the risk of fires. So I think in most cases that will not be a difficulty.
Mr BOURMAN: Mr Davis, I am going to love using this line: I do not think you have actually answered my question. How would it actually work? Would someone go to a website? Would the licensee put their phone number on a board at the front? For this to actually work in any form there has got to be some sort of mechanism that allows people to at least apply for access.
Mr DAVIS: I think in most cases it will be reasonably obvious who the licensee is. It may be that there are some cases where it may be more difficult. But in most cases I think it will be relatively straightforward and the licensee will be able to engage and support the camper.
Mr BOURMAN: Thank you, Mr Davis. So to cut to the chase, these people’s details will have to be made public in some form, whether it is a phone number, whether it is a website, whether it is gazetted or whatever. Is that a fair assumption?
Mr DAVIS: I think, as I said, in most cases it is pretty clear, and people in rural areas knock on a door.
Ms MAXWELL: If I may just ask Mr Davis another question, and it is along the same line of questioning as Mr Bourman, we know that people out fishing in boats will often have a swag in the boat, go along the river and find a place to camp. Now, if I was to use an example, if that was me doing that, how would I even begin to know where the house was? I would not want to be trespassing on somebody’s private land, so how would I actually physically gain permission to be on that land?
Mr DAVIS: We think that it is a reasonable balance that is struck with this amendment, and we think that in most cases it will be straightforward.
Mr BOURMAN: Mr Davis, I am going to cut to the chase. My concern with this is that at some point in time there will be public information. A lot of the licensees that contact us are people that live in Melbourne. That is not a problem except that they are obviously not based right near their licensed land. So their details will have to become public. Aren’t we worried about some clowns like Aussie Farms or something like that getting hold of this information and actually creating a problem with all of the things you have talked about? All of a sudden you have got animal activists rounding up people’s cows and letting them loose and things like that. I see this actually creating more issues than it could solve.
Mr DAVIS: As we outlined in the second-reading debate, the coalition developed this carefully in discussion with a number of key farming groups and others, and this was believed to be the fairest way through that struck a decent balance and enabled, on one hand, greater access and, on another, some mechanism for the licensee to have some control on that.
Mr BOURMAN: Mr Davis, I will just make a comment and let you know where I stand on the amendment. I cannot support this, because what I can see is a mechanism that I have two problems with: one, it is forcing the farmer to arbitrate who does and does not go onto public land—and really that is the bottom line of it—and two, at some point in time someone’s details are going to have to be public enough that people with actual ill intent will have them. I do not know if a lot of people have thought this through, but I can only see problems with this—not solutions.
Ms MAXWELL: I am still struggling to see the practicalities of how this would work, even given a small portion of what Mr Bourman was saying. People might come up from Melbourne and be motoring along the river. They are going to have no idea whose property it is. But if you were to decide to pull up in a boat, as I said, and you made your way to a house and there was nobody home, what would be the expectation then? What would you do? Would you have to go on to somewhere else?
Mr DAVIS: I think that this is an attempt to strike a balance here, and the alternative is to have no balance in it. People would walk onto land without any mechanism of managing that and impact potentially on the licensee who is in fact the custodian of the land in that sense, and they have got a job to protect and husband the land. So it is a balance that we are striking. You can strike the balance here or you can strike it there. We have suggested it be struck in a middle point.
Ms MAXWELL: Thank you, Mr Davis. Whilst I absolutely agree about having a balance and a regard for that property owner, that licence-holder et cetera, what I am wanting to gain is just for you to be able to inform me in a practical sense the workings of this. How will this work in a practical sense? Saying that you need the balance is not giving me that understanding of a practical sense, a physical sense, of what I would do when I get to that beautiful beached area that I have been made aware I can camp on. How practically do I gain consent to do that?
Mr DAVIS: As I said earlier, Ms Maxwell, I think in many cases that will be obvious. We concede this: it is a balance that is being struck to try and ensure that there is some measure of involvement for the licensee in the process of the camping that is occurring now. As I say, it is something that is struck at a certain point, and I think in most cases it will be straightforward.
Dr CUMMING: My question to the amendment is: we are talking about Crown land, aren’t we? And we are just talking about the licensees, is that correct?
Mr DAVIS: Yes.
Dr CUMMING: We are talking about licensees—we are not talking about people’s land that is leased—not leaseholders?
Mr DAVIS: Yes, correct.
Dr CUMMING: With the proposed amendments, how will there be consultation with what the government has been proposing? The government is proposing to consult with traditional owners. Earlier I agreed to your other amendment, which was to look at having a committee set up, and I also agreed to the Greens amendment which was furthering consultation. So how with your amendment will those two elements be addressed—consultation?
Mr DAVIS: I understand your point, and the amendment has been formed after wide discussion and consultation with groups around the state. Particularly with the government’s large tranche of amendments that came forward yesterday, it is true that we would have preferred to have had the whole bill and the balances to have been struck in the bill on a number of fronts—this one as well as others—and to have consulted widely over a better period. Now that has been lost. The fact is that has been lost and we are at the point where we are, and the reality is that we face the balance to be struck here with some measure of say for the licensee. So that is the point we are trying to strike. Any implementation matters could well be discussed, as you are I think alluding to, by the government as it goes forward with its regulations and so forth in the time line that has actually now been agreed to, with the government’s amendment just a few moments ago.
Dr CUMMING: When I read the statement of compatibility from the government, it talks about human rights and it talks about section 12, which is about freedom of movement. Section 12 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities provides for the right of every person to move freely within Victoria, to enter and leave it and to have the freedom to choose where to live, and it includes freedom from physical barriers and procedural implementation. Mr Davis, do you believe that this amendment actually adheres to the freedom of movement?
Mr DAVIS: Again, a balance has been struck. There is a licensee, and licensees have got duties and responsibilities to that land and to the management of it. The reality is that if the balance were to be struck in the way the government is proposing there might be greater freedom of movement—that is your point—but there is also a significant imposition on the licensee, who is in a position of responsibility with that land. So again this is a matter of striking a balance, and that is what we have sought to strike with this. I can see that there is a continuum, and we could have a debate about different spots, but this is the line that we have struck.
Dr CUMMING: My question is: what is the amount of money normally paid by a licensee, rather than by someone who holds a lease? We are talking about Crown land, and there is the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978. Obviously land is made Crown land for the whole community to have access to it. I do understand that a licence arrangement is in place. But in respect of the underlying measure, it is Crown land, there is a reserves act and we have within our own human rights charter freedom to move. My understanding is that, yes, licensees hold certain responsibilities, but does what you are proposing actually stop what everyone should enjoy—that is, the Crown land and freedom of movement?
Mr DAVIS: As I understand it, Dr Cumming, the bill actually expands the access to public land from where it is now. We would put in an arrangement where the licensee would be involved, and that would provide that striking of a balance. It would still be more open than it is now.
Mr BOURMAN: Mr Davis, I just thought of one last question. A lot of the concerns that the opposition have had about the bill have been about biosecurity, with people wandering around on leasehold and freehold property. Accepting your premise that it will be relatively easy for people to figure out who the licence-holder is, won’t that encourage people to walk all over freehold and leased land, actually increasing the risk of biosecurity problems?
Mr DAVIS: I do not believe that is the problem. I think the bigger problem is camping in a way that does not respect the ability and responsibility of the licensee to manage it and the responsibilities that they have.
Dr CUMMING: Mr Davis, does the opposition actually support this bill?
Mr DAVIS: Well, Dr Cumming, in the general sense we support some of the objectives of the bill, but we think that there are problems about the way the government has proceeded with this bill. We think there has not been an open enough process through some of this, and I made the point just before about the new series of amendments that have come very late in the piece. It was one bill; it is actually a different bill from what it was 24 hours ago. I would make the point that we think there are some issues there. We would prefer that it had been consulted in a more fulsome way, and hence the proposal brought today in light of the government’s additional tranche of amendments that were announced yesterday and circulated today. So that in a sense was our way to have that broader consultation. We think the consultation the government is proposing about the regulations could have been loaded earlier rather than being done after the bill has passed. It may well be that problems are exposed as the consultation goes forward, but the bill will have already been passed. That is our view. It depends on what the shape of the bill is when we finish the bill, in answer directly to your question.
Dr CUMMING: Just to question the shape of the bill, are you suggesting that if this amendment gets up you would support the bill?
Mr DAVIS: We would not oppose it.
Dr CUMMING: My question again will be: if this amendment does not get up, will you support the bill?
Mr DAVIS: We will make a decision in the light of where the bill is at the end of the process. There is still some way, as we know, to go.
Dr CUMMING: Just to understand the light of the process, what is the light of the process? Are we voting on the bill today? There are no other amendments; am I correct?
Mr DAVIS: No, no. There are actually a tranche of further amendments.
Mr LEANE: Dr Cumming, the intent of the government is to hopefully put the third reading to the house this afternoon. I think probably we could be delving into some second-reading debate rather than analysing this clause in the bill.
I would just like to quickly respond to Mr Davis’s proposed amendments. The government will not support the proposed amendments for the reasons that some of the committee members have fleshed out, but also we believe that we had a mandate that we took to the election that we want to see more people being able to camp in Crown land areas without incurring a cost as far as paying for that particular bit of land to camp goes. And that is the position that we continue to have.
Committee divided on amendments:
| Ayes, 10 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | ||
| Noes, 24 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Maxwell, Ms | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Amendments negatived.
Mr BOURMAN: I move:
Clause 49, line 28, omit “purposes.”.” and insert—
“purposes.
Note
Licensed water frontage land does not include certain Crown land, including leased Crown land, or freehold land.”.”.
My amendment is basically a note. It has been, I guess, largely fixed by what the government has already done. It basically specifies what this bill pertains to. A lot of the people that contacted me had leased land or freehold land. Obviously this bill does not apply to that. Just to help people be a little more comfortable with the way this was going, I put that in.
Mr DAVIS: The coalition will not support the amendment.
Mr LEANE: If there are no more speakers, can I indicate to the committee that the government is more than happy to support the amendment proposed by Mr Bourman. I think taking into account his commentary about why he is actually moving this amendment, I know he has put a lot of consideration into this bill and spoken to a lot of different stakeholders, including a number of farmers that actually will not be affected whatsoever by this bill. Therefore he has ensured that there is complete and utter clarification—that it is very clear—that licensed waterfrontage affected by this type of activity does not include leased or freehold land. I appreciate what Mr Bourman outlined—that the house amendments actually gave some comfort towards that clarification—but I think that if there have been different farm holders told things that are not true then maybe this amendment could leave no doubt that if anyone was telling them that those particular freehold and leased lands would be affected by this particular bill then they were being lied to.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 25 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Maxwell, Ms | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | ||
| Noes, 10 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | ||
Amendment agreed to.
Amended clause agreed to; clauses 50 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 (17:25)
Mr LEANE: Amendments 5 to 7 are consequential amendments with respect to the regulatory powers under the Land Act 1958, so they are consequential to the amendments that we moved before. I move:
5. Clause 52, lines 14 and 15, omit “water frontages and licensed water frontages” and insert “regulated watercourse land”.
6. Clause 52, lines 18 and 19, omit “water frontages and licensed water frontages” and insert “regulated watercourse land”.
7. Clause 52, lines 23 and 24, omit “water frontages and licensed water frontages” and insert “regulated watercourse land”.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr LEANE: Amendment 8 in my name simply inserts a new subsection which deals with matters of the regulations in the Land Act 1958. I move:
8. Clause 52, after line 28 insert—
‘(3) After section 413(4) of the Land Act 1958 insert—
“(5) Regulations made under this Act may—
(a) leave any matter or thing to be decided by a specified person or class of person; and
(b) provide for the exemption of persons or a class of persons from any of the regulations.”.’.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 53 to 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 (17:27)
Mr LEANE: Amendment 9 in my name, as I said before, is a consequential amendment to the amendments that we made before. I move:
9. Clause 117, line 3, omit “December 2021” and insert “September 2022”.
Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to.
Reported to house with amendments.
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:28): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
House divided on motion:
| Ayes, 34 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Shing, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Stitt, Ms |
| Crozier, Ms | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Finn, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Watt, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | ||
| Noes, 1 | ||
| Cumming, Dr | ||
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:36): I move:
That the bill be read a third time.
I thank everyone for their contributions and their examination in the committee stage.
The PRESIDENT: The question is:
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
House divided on question:
| Ayes, 33 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Shing, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Stitt, Ms |
| Crozier, Ms | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Finn, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Watt, Ms |
| Noes, 2 | ||
| Cumming, Dr | Hayes, Mr | |
Question agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendment.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (17:40): Regarding Mr Davis’s supplementary question to Ms Pulford during question time, at the end of her answer Ms Pulford was saying she would be happy to provide her notes and diary, but then I stopped her because the time had expired. Ms Pulford has one day to respond to the supplementary.
Bills
Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:41): The Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020 is the bill I rise to address the Parliament on today, a bill to amend the Marine Safety Act 2010 to establish a trust account to be known as the Better Boating Fund. It establishes the Better Boating Fund—that is what it does; it just establishes it—and there are some minor amendments that clarify the wording relating to the application of boating and fishing registration and licensing fees. I think boating and fishing are great family pastimes, and I think families quite love getting together to do that. It is something I love to do, and I know many families love to do it as well. I also like to fish, but I have to say, unlike Ms Terpstra’s contribution this morning about her prowess at fishing, I am nothing like that. I think fishing involves a whole lot of time standing around feeding fish, which is what I do.
Mr Finn: It’s not a lot different to in here actually.
Mr ONDARCHIE: There is that. There are a lot who get fed here, Mr Finn. I would like to be a catch and release fisherman, but I have trouble with the very first bit. I just do not seem to catch anything. Nonetheless, I have found it a good time to spend with my family. I remember when my kids were little, we would take them fishing and we would sit on the bank and just chat about things. I find it a good time, so today I rise to talk about that.
On 9 September 2018 the Honourable Matthew Guy, the then opposition leader, stood down on the sand belt area of Melbourne and announced the coalition’s policy to build a blue infrastructure fund. It was to provide a first-class infrastructure and services fund for recreational water users to build more boat ramps and jetties and install navigational lighting as well as onshore facilities such as bigger car parks and cleaning tables. It would invest in infrastructure like those things so people could enjoy the improvement in access—
Mr Davis interjected.
Mr ONDARCHIE: don’t mind me, Mr Davis, interrupting you—and enjoy Victoria’s waterways. Recreational boating is estimated to contribute about $4.5 billion to the Victorian economy each year. It is underpinned by about 193 000 registered boat owners, 1 million boating participants annually and about 17 500 full-time jobs. In addition recreational fishing generates a combined direct and indirect contribution of more than $7.1 billion per year and accounts for over 30 000 full-time jobs. It is very, very important to our state economy as well.
Victoria’s bays and waterways are an essential asset both in terms of their economic contribution via facilitating activities related to tourism and recreational fishing and boating as well as from an environmental and ecological standpoint. As more Victorians seek to use and enjoy our bays and waterways than ever before, it is really important that initiatives which support economic marine-related activity are promoted while at the same time recognising and providing for the protection of the unique ecological features which underpin that strategy.
Commercial and recreational activity in and around Victorian bays and waterways, also known as the blue economy, is a significant contributor to the Victorian economy. With 2500 kilometres of coastline; over 120 bays, inlets and estuaries; over 85 000 kilometres of rivers; and 13 000 kilometres of natural wetlands, Victoria has a substantial resource and opportunity to grow and expand the blue economy. In many areas the blue economy is a major contributor to the success of related industries and businesses—as I have talked about, particularly tourism—which rely on their proximity to waterways, such as cafes, restaurants, shops and watersport skills and operators. Victoria’s population projections show that in the central coast area, including Port Phillip and Western Port, the population will increase from around 4.6 million to nearly 8 million by 2050. This has the potential to double boating activity and significantly boost our economy.
So whilst that was announced on 9 September 2018, the blue infrastructure fund was about ensuring that all funds raised by those activities would go back into those activities. Some six weeks later on 31 October 2018, copying the coalition policy, the Premier announced that:
Labor will fix boat ramps, abolish all boat ramp parking and launching fees and make sure that every cent of licencing and registration fees is spent on boating safety and facilities.
…
Labor will establish a Better Boating Fund to immediately get to work on urgent boat ramp upgrades …
That was two years ago he made this statement, copying the coalition policy. This bill is intended, I believe, to deliver on that election promise, but it falls well short. There is absolutely no nexus between the bill and the sum of moneys received from licensing and registration fees and the amount being paid into the fund.
Now, we had a policy that said, ‘It’s got to be one dollar in, one dollar to the fund’. This bill does not say that. It says that the Treasurer or the minister administering part 7 of the Financial Management Act 1994, currently jointly administered by the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer, will authorise expenditure provided through a standing appropriation to be paid into the fund so moneys can be directly appropriated to that fund. So they will make the decision exactly how much money goes in. That is not what they said, and it is definitely not what we said.
The government has advised many of the stakeholders that the amount that will be deposited by the Treasurer each year is equivalent to all revenue from recreational marine licensing and vessel registrations. But this commitment by the Treasurer is actually not reflected in the elements of this bill, and that is where we have a problem. Additionally the bill establishes a very minimalist public reporting requirement, which includes marine licence and vessel registration fee receipts, together with the total expenditure from the fund and a fairly high-level description of the fund programs and projects. The report, the bill says, will be published after being approved by the minister on the Department of Transport website. The report will not be included by way of this bill in the department’s annual report. We have talked to a number of people about this—to the Victoria Recreational Fishing Peak Body and to the Boating Industry Association of Victoria, and I thank Steve Walker and his people for their chat—and in a sense they would like better reporting and to ensure that every dollar raised through this goes back into the industry.
I have some amendments standing in my name, and I ask that those amendments associated with this bill now be circulated.
Opposition amendments circulated by Mr ONDARCHIE pursuant to standing orders.
Mr ONDARCHIE: I will speak more to these amendments in the committee stage of this bill, but essentially these amendments do a number of things. They ensure that the fees that are generated through the Better Boating Fund will go straight to the Better Boating Fund and not be used through consolidated revenue for other activities. We have some amendments that will fix that. We also want the government to better report on how they are allocating the money and what they are allocating the money to. They talk also about ensuring that the reporting mechanism for this comes before each house of the Parliament and not through a website that is not actually reported in the department’s annual report.
If we can get that done today and the government agrees to make sure that their verbal commitment through media releases and the minister saying things—and I remind the house that it was not just this minister but the minister before, who I suspect will be the minister at the table, who made the commitment to that—if we can have them more than just saying it and commit it into the legislation to prove that their words are true, then we will get through this very quickly. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:50): I rise to speak on the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020. My electorate is in a prime location for lovers of the bay, including fishermen, divers, sailors and recreational users. Come summer, from the shoreline of my electorate not dozens but hundreds of boats can be seen enjoying what the bay has to offer. I am always in support of increasing accessibility and resources for boat owners and am all for removing barriers that may prevent this. I would love to see more boating infrastructure in my electorate, and if used correctly, this fund should do that. So for that reason I will support the bill.
But I would like to express my concerns about bureaucracy in the boating world. The better boating initiative aims to encourage and increase the use of our state’s waterways for recreational purposes. One would assume that it is committed to removing obstacles and challenges for boaters. I am not completely convinced that they are doing the best job.
You may remember my recent efforts to save the Launchingway boat ramp at Carrum in my electorate. The Hogan family had been operating the Launchingway boat ramp for over 25 years when they were told they were getting the boot. On some mornings they could launch and park 300 to 400 boats and trailers, coordinate boats, jet skis and charters and operate their bait and tackle shop. Despite their incredible efforts, it was decided by the government that they were not needed and that Melbourne Water, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and Better Boating Victoria would take over. Even though the Hogans applied for the new contract, they were told that they were not qualified, and from that point they were practically ignored. They were not even told that they were not successful until the last day of their operations, when traffic management crews showed up to begin setting up for their takeover on the following day.
The irony in all of this is the subsequent mess that has been caused by the takeover. We have been contacted by the Hogans, who have shown the utter chaos which is now unfolding at the ramp: cars waiting for up to 45 minutes to travel a few hundred metres to the ramp, cars and boats being turned away because the car park is full despite the overflow car park being locked up, staff getting abused by frustrated boat owners, and the list goes on. This is not to mention the boats over 6 metres which were turned away and sent to other ramps despite Launchingway being the only ramp in the area which can cater to large vessels, nor does it consider the dozens of jet skis and charter boats which will begin flowing in the warmer weather. This does not sound like better boating at all; it sounds more like bungled boating.
I do really hope the establishment of this fund will mean proceeds from licence fees are allocated back to the boaters at the sites that need it most, such as Launchingway. With this fund there will be no excuse for this incompetency to continue. The Liberal Democrats will support this bill.
Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:53): I rise to contribute to the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020. At the outset I would like to say, contrary to what some other members have contributed and mentioned, this bill is a significant milestone in what will be the government’s recreational boating reform agenda. Our country is a nation of sport-loving people. We love sport. We love recreational and outdoor activities, and that includes recreational boating. In the next few weeks we can look forward to what we hope will be a COVID-normal summer, at which time a lot of outdoor activities, including boating and recreational activities, will be taking place.
Mr Finn: With or without masks?
Dr KIEU: It is not in my capacity to answer your question. You will have to ask the chief health officer.
Boating activity is a very important contributor to our economy; more than 400 000 Victorians participate and hold marine licences. It also contributes directly and indirectly an amount estimated at $8 billion to our economy. It also supports 22 000 jobs directly or indirectly in the state of Victoria. At the election the Andrews government committed to, one, allocate all the proceeds of collected boat licence and registration fees to improving facilities and safety for the boating community and, two, establish the Better Boating Fund to facilitate urgent boat ramp upgrades and continual maintenance for Victoria’s boating infrastructure; hence the bill before the house today.
The bill aims to set up the Better Boating Fund, and that will be used to deliver on recreational priorities in boat ramp upgrades, new facilities, maintenance, boating safety and education. For the fund there will be a commitment to transfer approximately $31 million per year and more, and this amount is growing in proportion to the growth in recreational boating activities. The money will be deposited into the fund, and the money can only be spent on specified purposes. Once again, I would like to repeat that that will include maintaining and improving facilities, and education and safety.
The bill establishes public reporting provisions that will enable the public to understand how much revenue is generated through marine licences and vessel registration fees, how the money is deposited into the Better Boating Fund, how the money is being spent and also how the revenue and expenditure compares to the previous year. So our boaters will get a legislated trust fund, and that trust fund will be managed in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act 1994. We also know that there will be many competing priorities for funding in the recreational boating system. That is why our minister will now progress a Victorian recreational boating strategy. The strategy will determine the priorities. There will be consultative forums and ministerial round tables established to guide the development process and to make sure that the first action plan is ready to be implemented when the fund commences. The fund must commence before October 2021, but our intention and expectation is that it will start three months earlier than that, on 1 July 2021.
As I mentioned, this is a significant milestone for the government’s recreational boating reform agenda, and we look forward to continuing to deliver improvements for our Victorian boating constituents. So I encourage the house to support the bill.
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:59): I rise today to speak on the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020. It has been noted during this debate by my colleague Mr Ondarchie that this bill is a clear departure from the Labor Party’s promise at the last election. The Premier’s announcement told us that:
… every cent of licensing and registration fees will be spent on boating safety and facilities.
The government had the opportunity to uphold that promise in the drafting of the legislation but chose not to. The government could have included a simple line requiring all boaters licence fees to go into the fund or similar, but no, as usual the Labor government believes it knows best how to spend your money. To the government, the taxpayer—or in this case the boat licence holder—is irresponsible, a person who ought to have their money purloined and spent at the discretion of government via consolidated revenue however they see fit.
The determined effort to avoid altering the legislation to uphold their election promise is a clear indication that this government have no intention of spending boat licence fees on boating infrastructure. The government would much prefer no doubt to spend it on other things. What use are some repaired boat ramps to the Labor government? Which inner-city battleground seats will they be able to secure with jetties? Perhaps they could add a few on the Yarra. No, this Labor government would rather money go into their next project blowout or the next highly paid government department, or officer—they are losing a few at the moment—that they plan to set up, rather than back into infrastructure to be used by those who pay the licence fees.
But Minister Horne assures us that all the money will go straight back into boating. The peak advocacy body, the Boating Industry Association of Victoria, is not sure. They told the Weekly Times that it is at the Treasurer’s discretion, which means he could like the boating industry this year and then not in future years. It does not give boaters the confidence they want for the next five, 10 or 20 years. To leave anything up to the whims of this Treasurer is a very bad and foolish idea. Under this Treasurer our state debt is set to float out to over $100 billion. That is nearly $20 billion more than what we were left with after the Cain and Kirner governments, indexed for inflation. I feel deeply sorry for the boaters, because the Treasurer is certainly not the bloke I would be trusting with their money.
There is also the issue in the bill which my western Victoria colleague in the other place the member for Polwarth called the ‘Once Again Ripping Off Country Victorians Bill 2020’. Most of our waterways are in rural and regional Victoria. In my electorate alone there is the entire south-west coastline and the Great Ocean Road, Lake Corangamite, Lake Colac, Lake Bullen Merri, Lake Burrumbeet and the Barwon River to name just a few.
Across country Victoria there is disintegrating and ageing infrastructure on our waterways; infrastructure that is relied upon by thousands of boaters but is in desperate need of repair. As a former councillor we were frequently asked to try and contribute to boat ramps and infrastructure for boat users. Can we expect the licence fees to go towards repairing them? Of course not. We do not need to look beyond the government’s track record. This inside-the-tram-tracks government will always prioritise the needs of those in the city over those in the country, who feed them and provide them with the best tourist destinations in the world.
I urge members to support the amendments moved by my colleague Mr Ondarchie, which will ensure that all moneys collected from fees received under this bill in relation to boating are hypothecated and only used for the purposes of boating infrastructure.
Following speech incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 15 September:
Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan)
I also rise to make a contribution on the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020.
It gives me great pleasure to be speaking in support of a bill that further reinforces the Andrews Labor government’s commitment to improving Victoria’s offering in outdoor recreation and making it not only world class but also affordable for all families.
This bill builds on what our government has already delivered for the boating and fishing community, which is improved infrastructure, better and more resources and more affordable and accessible access for those that love doing these great outdoor activities.
And I’m sure everyone here has a fond memory or can recount a story, either from a personal experience or from a family member, friend or neighbour, of a great time they had on a weekend or a holiday while fishing or boating or maybe of a great catch they have made—a catch which no doubt grows in size each time the story is told.
These are amongst some of the greatest memories that Victorians have that not only allow people to catch up and socialise but are also an effective remedy for reducing stress and enjoying a well-earned break.
I personally have many fond memories, far too many to list, however a few include:
• the regular fishing trips with my father, brother and sister in boats hired from John Allnutt Boat Hire in Mordialloc Creek, who would be known to many, especially locally, as they are believed to be one of Victoria’s first boat hire businesses.
• I recall early morning starts, fishing mainly with hand reels, where we would easily catch flatheads of all sizes, sometimes whether you were using bait or not.
• There was also the time, while on a work fishing trip with my father down in Port Welshpool, that I caught a school shark which took about 45 minutes to reel in and measured about a metre—no exaggeration of course!
• There was also the time—one of many—that I had the opportunity to go out with my good friend Graeme Watson on his boat, on this occasion in Western Port, where I tried out the new snapper rod that he had given me for my 30th birthday, where I had reeled in a very good catch that day as well as enjoyed the camaraderie with a good mate.
Whilst many people engage in fishing and boating activities for the pure enjoyment and relaxation, many see it as an important and essential outlet, so having a fund like this that is going to improve our recreational fishers’ and boating resources is a wonderful thing.
And I don’t have to tell anyone just how hard this year has been for so many with restrictions and the impact this has had on the ability to do so many things like fishing and boating, amongst so many other things.
But now with the easing of restrictions, with the metro and regional border and travel restrictions gone, and some great weather ahead—bearing in mind it is Melbourne weather, so anything could happen—I expect families will be heading out in droves to engage in fishing and boating activities in a COVID-safe way.
And they will enjoy the many benefits and improvements that our government have already implemented and delivered.
And I’ll talk a little more about these in a moment if I have time because there are so many.
This is a small and straightforward bill, but an important one.
The bill:
• establishes a new trust account called the Better Boating Fund;
• guarantees that funding can only be spent on boating related facilities, services, safety and education; and
• establishes annual public reporting requirements to provide the transparency that our stakeholders requested.
Our government knows and acknowledges how important fishing and boating is to so many Victorians.
And we know how important it is for our economy.
We know that for over 400 000 Victorians across the state that hold a marine licence boating is an important part of their lifestyle, along with countless more Victorians who participate in this activity, as well as those with a fishing licence.
And I am very pleased to say a significant portion of those are either residents of or visitors to my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region.
Recreational boating contributes around $8 billion directly and indirectly to the economy and provides over 22 000 jobs directly and indirectly to Victorians.
And the revenue generated last year from these 400 000 licences was around $31 million.
We have listened to the calls from Victoria’s boating community for the establishment of a legislated fund to ensure that every dollar of licensing and registration fees is spent on boating safety and facilities.
And through this bill we have responded to these calls and the needs of our boating community and delivered on our election commitment to do so.
We made a clear commitment to Victorian recreational boaters that we would:
• allocate all the proceeds of collected boat licence and registration fees to improve facilities and increase safety for the boating community; and
• establish the Better Boating Fund to facilitate urgent boat ramp upgrades and continual maintenance of Victoria’s boating infrastructure.
That is exactly what this bill is doing.
This fund will ensure that every cent collected from boating licences and registration fees is spent on improving facilities and safety for the boating community.
Our fishing and boating communities will from now on have surety of this funding with the Better Boating Fund being established as a trust account and inserted in the Marine Safety Act 2010.
The fund will be managed in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Management Act.
The Better Boating Fund will pay for expenditure such as boating facilities, safety education and infrastructure, hardware, software, ramp improvements, apps with boat ramp information, improved signage, weather information, safety alerts, car parking, lighting and larger trailer parking bays.
It may also include information in various languages, reflecting our amazing multicultural community.
And in keeping with our government’s commitment to accountability and transparency, annual reporting will allow for public scrutiny of this expenditure after the fund commences on 1 July 2020, with the report being published on or before 1 October annually.
The report will include:
• how much revenue is raised from fees for licensing and registration;
• how much money was paid into the fund;
• how much was paid out of the fund and what the money was spent on; and
• how much money is carried forward into the next financial year.
The report will be published on the Department on Transport’s website, where it will remain until it is replaced with the subsequent annual report.
You can’t get more transparent and accountable than that!
A Victorian recreational boating strategy will be co-designed with boating stakeholders in order to identify recreational boating priorities and to ensure we deliver on and work towards the best possible facilities for all Victorians.
A ministerial boating round table will also be established to support this process and public engagement is also expected as part of the strategy to ensure all boaters have an opportunity to provide feedback.
And unlike those opposite, our government doesn’t just talk about support for our boating and fishing community; we actually get on and provide it.
Our government has an impressive record on delivering for Victorian boat users.
• In 2018 we committed to making it cheaper and easier for Victorian families to get out on the water, with an unprecedented boost to recreational boating and fishing.
• We committed to fixing boat ramps and abolishing boat ramp parking and launching fees at all publicly available boat ramps across the state, and boaters are now coming into their second boating season without having to pay fees to launch their vessels.
• These fees have been removed from facilities all over the state including Patterson River, Frankston and Mordialloc in my electorate, saving boaters up to $315 a year.
• We committed to deliver eight casual berths but have delivered 12, and we have installed over 30 seasonal moorings to help address congestion.
• We allocated almost $40 million to upgrade facilities, including Mordialloc jetty.
• Our Target One Million program is in full swing.
• We have installed new fish cleaning tables, including in Frankston.
• We are restocking our waterways across the state.
• We even improved the Frankston Pier, which got damaged and blown away in a storm.
• And the list goes on and on and on.
This is in stark contrast to those opposite, who basically delivered nothing while in government but now want to try and lecture us.
During the four years the coalition were in office they did not put a cent into this type of activity.
Not one cent from licences and fees was put directly back into boating when the coalition was in government.
Those opposite had every opportunity to establish a dedicated fund, but they failed to do it.
The reality is you can’t believe a word they say. And their actions, or more to the point their lack of actions, are proof of this fact.
Only our government is committed to making boating better for the hundreds of thousands of Victorians that partake in this popular and growing recreational activity.
We are a government that sticks to what we believe in and delivers on our election commitments.
I have got plenty of people in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region that are very committed to fishing and to boating, with many households owning boats to get out, whether it is on the bay or to the many lakes and rivers in outer-metropolitan and regional Victoria.
There is something absolutely magical about being out there on the water, whether you are in a boat with a fishing rod in your hand, on a pier or by the river.
We are all drawn to the water in some way or another.
I’m proud to be part of a government that continues to deliver on its election commitments, including continuing to improve the boating and fishing experience for all Victorians.
I commend this bill to the house.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:05): I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020 this afternoon. As members have indicated, this legislation serves to deliver an election commitment that the government made to boaters—people who have boating licences and people who pay boating registration fees—the effect being that every cent is reinvested into safety and facilities. Melissa Horne is now the person with perhaps the most fun job in the government, being the Minister for Fishing and Boating. It is a position that I loved very, very much, and I know people are—
A member: Being the Minister for Small Business isn’t fun?
Ms PULFORD: Well, see, the thing is there are a lot of small businesses still in fishing and boating, so, you know, I can still dabble, I guess—not with Minister Horne’s responsibilities but with my love of our angling and boating communities at the very least. Indeed I was on a boat on Sunday, which was lovely, on some of that coastline that Mrs McArthur was referring to in the great Western Victoria electorate.
But back to the purpose of the bill, our election commitment was about providing a guarantee to our boaters that their expenditure would be reinvested into their passion and pastime. Of course having more people boating is good for industry and having more people boating is good for people’s wellbeing and mental health—and I can tell you, having been on a boat for the first time on Sunday for a very long time, given all of the restrictions on all of our movement for so much of this year, it is a very peaceful place to be, and that is why people love it so much. Of course many of our boaters also do like to wet a line, though of course many of our boaters are happy to be out on the water and just enjoying it in other ways.
So that is what the election commitment was about. As members would be well aware, our government keeps our election commitments, each and every one of them. It is something that we take very, very seriously. The Premier’s expectation of his ministers around delivery of election commitments and full delivery of election commitments is absolute. I had some involvement in the early preparation of the bill and the work to deliver this commitment. I take the opportunity while I can to thank some of the people in the Department of Transport who assisted in that endeavour because, you know, reshuffles happen quickly and I did not get a chance to say goodbye as much as I would have liked to. So to Megan Bourke-O’Neil, Paul Salter, Gary Gaffney and Travis Dowling, thank you to you and your colleagues for your work and your input into this important reform.
It is going to be a really exciting thing for our boating community to have in the order of $31 million a year reinvested. You can already see the improvements occurring from the initial injection of funds that was in the government’s first budget in this term. These projects will be giving people, now that they are able to get out and about again, a really, really great boating experience in the six locations across the state that were election commitments but then of course in a number of other places where improvements can be done. There is really important work underway on how we best manage and best preserve the quality of infrastructure as well, and I know our boating and fishing community are very concerned about the uneven nature of that. There are a lot of other really important reforms that Minister Horne is leading for our fishing and boating community. I think perhaps with those words I thank Minister Horne for her work on this.
I look forward to dealing with some of the issues in the committee stage. I look forward to hopefully the successful passage of this legislation this afternoon so that boaters can be confident that when they pay their licence renewal and when they pay their boat rego they will see continued investment and improvement in important safety features but also important accessibility features and ultimately more people boating more often and having a lovely time of it as well.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (18:12)
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Deputy President, I am pleased to make some remarks on clause 1, which is the purpose clause to, as you said, establish the Better Boating Fund. We have heard from Mr Ondarchie and other members about the government’s commitment for hypothecation of licence fees to provide for boating facilities. I just want to place on the record my further concerns over a matter I raised earlier this year with the then Minister for Fishing and Boating, who is actually handling the bill today, in relation to the Patterson River boat ramp. This is a matter which came to the attention of the house in March of this year, when the responsibility for that facility was being transferred from Melbourne Water to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). As part of that transfer the longstanding operators of that facility—the Hogan family, Trevor and Lynette Hogan—lost their lease of that facility and lost the responsibility of managing the car park of that facility. They currently continue to operate the tackle shop at Patterson River, but the responsibility for managing the car park and, with that, managing the parking of cars and trailers and the launch of boats has been transferred to another party engaged by the department.
This is a matter that the minister and I discussed in question time and by way of a members statement at the time, and the minister gave an undertaking that the department, on assuming responsibility for that facility, would provide the parking and management of the car park which would be required at that time. Now, we have subsequently seen that since DELWP have taken responsibility for this facility and have taken over running the ramp from the Hogans. It has been an absolute debacle. As predicted by users of the facility in March, as predicted by the Hogans, the management of the ramp and the management of the car park for the ramp is an absolute debacle.
If the now minister cares to look at the Facebook page for the ramp, cares to look at the Facebook page that the Hogans operate, the minister will see a number of videos and will see a number of photographs showing what a complete debacle the management of that ramp has become. Even on quiet days there are now cars and trailers banked up through the car park, off the ramp and out to the main road. There are sections of that facility, including the overflow section of that facility, which are locked off and are not being used at a time when there is mass congestion on the ramps and mass congestion in the car park. Every prediction that the department would mismanage the facility and mismanage the ramp has come to fruition.
The Hogans, who had run it for I think in the order of 25 years, and run it very effectively, were taken out of that role. They no longer have responsibility for the car park or the ramp, and the government has demonstrated with the department in charge that it cannot manage that facility. As a consequence people who use that facility, constituents of mine in the Carrum area but also other Melburnians who go to Patterson Lakes to use that facility, are being disadvantaged. In fact quite recently the operators put in place by the department actually had signs up advising people to go to other ramps. That is how bad it had become, how bad the management of the facility under this government had become, that people were being turned away. I might add this was at a time when the 25-kilometre restriction was in place and many people were not able to go to other ramps, so as forecast in this place back in March the takeover of that facility by DELWP has been a debacle. Fishers and boaters are suffering as a consequence.
In relation to the establishment of the Better Boating Fund, Mr Ondarchie has outlined our concerns about the fact that it is not hypothecating as the government committed, but we also have concerns around the way in which the funds are being spent, given we are now seeing the Patterson River ramp being mismanaged in such a catastrophic way that it is to the great detriment of the users of that facility.
Ms PULFORD: Look, Mr Rich-Phillips, I guess your comments were about expressing your views on the matter of the Patterson River parking and boat ramp facility, which is beyond the scope of the bill and these days beyond the scope of my intimate knowledge. I am a little rusty on this. I was not in June, but it has been some months. So I think the best thing is, rather than getting into this in too much detail—I gather you have said what you needed to say—I might ask Minister Horne if she wishes to take the opportunity to respond to that on notice. Sound like a plan?
Mr BOURMAN: I am actually going to be brief. I am going to move my amendments, and the amendments are basically—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Circulate them; it is fine.
Mr BOURMAN: Sorry, circulate my amendments, and move them, because I did not get to do that during the—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Move them when we get to clause 3. We are only on clause 1, so move them in clause 3. Just circulate them.
Mr BOURMAN: I will circulate them now. I will just be very quick. I will be extremely brief. The first two have all the money, basically, in relation to recreational vessels or the use of such hypothecated into the fund. There were a number of promises made, I am told, as late as last year that all the money will be spent. I have had a look at the bill. It does not preclude all the money being spent but it does not actually specify it, so that is the intent of amendments 1 and 2. Amendments 3 and 4 are reporting. Now, these are slightly different to Mr Ondarchie’s amendments. The intent of 1 and 2 is very, very similar, but different enough. I will just move them as a separate thing. The difference between my 3 and 4 is I believe Mr Ondarchie’s reporting was to the Parliament and mine is to a website.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, what is the total amount of funds expected to be received for the Better Boating Fund?
Ms PULFORD: It is in the order of $31 million a year, and I say in the order of rather than being able to give you a much harder, firmer figure because, for instance, boating registrations are often for a five-year period, so there is a degree of lumpiness, but the average over the last five years is how we derived the $31 million figure. In some years it is a little lower and in some years it is a little higher, but that is the average over the last five years.
Mr ONDARCHIE: I understand the seasonality of that, if you will pardon the pun. Minister, where will those funds come from?
Ms PULFORD: They come from all marine licence and vehicle registration fees.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, will there be any other revenue streams that will flow into the Better Boating Fund?
Ms PULFORD: No. In the earlier part of this term there was an appropriation through the budget process for a number of election commitments. That was in addition. So it would be open to government, if there were perhaps a significant project or some other need arose, to consider that through an ordinary budget process.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, you quoted about $31 million, allowing for some movement year on year. Is that the total amount of receipts that you will take from the boat registration and other licensing fees? The total amount you receive will go into the Better Boating Fund; is that what you are saying?
Ms PULFORD: Yes, that is the election commitment, and the legislation is to give effect to that.
Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (18:22)
Mr BOURMAN: I move:
1. Clause 3, after line 22 insert—
“(ab) all money received in relation to recreational vessels or use of recreational vessels under this Act; and”.
2. Clause 3, lines 25 and 26, omit “this Act or any other Act” and insert “any Act other than this Act”.
As I said before, it is basically requiring all moneys received in relation to recreational vessels and the use thereof to be paid into the Better Boating Fund. Amendment 2 amends the new section to require all money received under any act other than the Marine Safety Act.
Mr ONDARCHIE: In relation to Mr Bourman’s amendments, the point he makes is that the legislation does not specify that all fees received will flow into the fund. That is the thrust of what he is saying and certainly what my amendments say. There is no legislated requirement in this bill for the government to flow all the funds from boat owners fees, as promised in 2018 and as stated by the minister’s own media release yesterday and in fact by the former minister on 29 May 2019, when the then minister gave a commitment that all those fees would be exclusively used for boat facilities and safety initiatives. But the legislation does not say that, hence the reason for Mr Bourman’s adjustment today. It also ensures that if all that money goes in, then things can happen to make this happen. The current facilities need every cent of boat owner registration to flow back into servicing those sorts of facilities. For example, on Melbourne Cup Day parking facilities for boaties were packed at Altona and there was a 4-hour wait to launch a boat. On 24 October the Patterson River car park was full of boaties from 5.00 am. Whilst Mr Rich-Phillips touched on that earlier in his contribution on clause 1, I know of boaties that gave up and went home because they just had to wait too long.
It is two years now since the government announced this initiative, and they are just establishing the fund now. It is no wonder Victorians are frustrated by this. It is only going to get worse in the summer. With the 25 kilometres that was originally purported people would drive 24.5 kilometres to the boat ramp and could only go out 500 metres. It was ridiculous.
Dean Logan, the CEO of Small to Medium Enterprise Australia, said:
Labor went to the last election PROMISING to fix the issue of poor boat ramp infrastructure and yet nothing has changed, except some spending on piers and walk-ways so people can take wedding photos.
He then went on to say:
They now want boating license fee money for other election promises and Victorian boaties are rightfully livid.
Dean went on to say:
Don’t blame us for pointing out the obvious. No matter how you look at this, it’s poor policy, it’s sneaky and a genuine missed opportunity for a sector screaming out for political leadership and policy vision.
That is why our amendments and Mr Bourman’s amendments go to the heart of this, and that is why they should be supported by all members to ensure that the government will walk the talk, that they will commit in legislation to making sure that every cent—every single cent—that is raised, as the minister has said, that is in the legislation will go to boaties. Anybody who votes against this today suggests that the government might be doing otherwise.
Ms PULFORD: The commitment of the government is that every cent of licence and registration fees paid by boaties is accounted for and becomes the revenue source of the fund. I can certainly confirm for the avoidance of any doubt, though there is no reason for there to be any, that it remains the government’s every intention; it is our commitment, it is what is going to happen, it is the point of the fund. I can guarantee that every cent will be spent on safety and facilities for boaties. In fact the things that Mr Ondarchie was reflecting upon around the condition of some facilities, around the need to deal with particularly popular spots at certain peak times, at popular times, are the very reason we have made that commitment. I mean, that problem is well known and understood.
In terms of the observation about the time that has occurred since the election, developing legislation, as I think all members of the house know, is not something that actually occurs overnight. In the intervening period, fees have been removed from boat ramps and a thorough assessment has been taken of the boat-ramp landscape in Victoria. I can tell you, Mr Ondarchie, when I first took on boating responsibilities after the 2018 election, one of my first questions to the department was, ‘So, how many boat ramps are there?’. And there are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of boat ramp managers. By the time we were done we had counted in excess of 500. Mrs McArthur earlier made the point that this has something of a coastal bias. There are a great many boat ramps in inland locations right across Victoria. Some of them are very small. Obviously Patterson River, which has had a bit of a mention today, is one of the biggest and most popular and most significant ones. Some are very significant, some are quite small and less often visited. So we started by understanding that landscape, and Minister Horne will continue with the reform around boat ramp management, which is I know something that our boaties are very interested in because that is the thing that will improve their experience. Now, this legislation is about funding the improvement of that experience. So again, on behalf of the government, we are 100 per cent committed to every cent from these fees and registrations being spent on boating safety and facilities. There is something of a suggestion that that is not the case. That is not true.
I should also say, Mr Bourman, the government will not be supporting this amendment. I will put that on the record. But in the debate in the lower house the coalition proposed a measure that would have had the effect of significantly cutting the deposit into the fund to $14 million from $31 million by separating vessel registration from licence fees. So the position seems to have changed somewhat since the lower house debate, but we have been consistent. The position that we had before the election and every day since, including today, is the same.
Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.
Ms TAYLOR: I move:
That the meal break scheduled for this day, pursuant to sessional order 1, be suspended.
Motion agreed to.
Sitting suspended 6.31 pm until 6.54 pm.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Just before we took our break, Minister, we were speaking to Mr Bourman’s amendment about committing into legislation the commitment you made on 29 May 2019 about exclusively using all that money for better facilities and Minister Horne’s commitments on 13 October, when she said that the government will promise to reinvest every dollar of the boating fees, and when she committed again yesterday, reannounced the Better Boating Fund and talked about the fact that every cent will go into the Better Boating Fund. If that is right—your commitment on 29 May 2019, the minister’s commitment on 13 October this year and the minister’s commitment on 11 November this year—why wouldn’t you just commit that commitment that you made verbally into this legislation?
Ms PULFORD: As Mr Ondarchie well knows, the government is opposing this amendment. We do not believe that that is necessary. Our commitment and our position on this is clear. So on the manner and form and specifically the question of support for the amendment, I think we have to agree to disagree, Mr Ondarchie. But what I did was, rather than rely on my memory, track down those commitments in the cleaning break that we just had for a few moments there. I refer to some of the comments I made earlier about funding for boating prior to the establishment of the fund. The government has now committed $47.2 million—that is $6.6 million to support the removal of fees and $39.6 million for those upgrades that were part of the election commitment as well as some resourcing to undertake the very detailed piece of work that is the management review that I referred to. So that is just for context in terms of our commitment and funding made to date, prior to the establishment of what will, I hope, be the new arrangements.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, thank you for that update on the funds committed thus far. We will be interested to see what happens on 24 November in terms of future budget commitments for this sector. But in this house we have heard on a number of occasions, two of which come to mind immediately, the fact that this was an election commitment and you want to fulfil your election commitment. That occurred when we were talking about the grand final parade public holiday, when I asked the question then of the minister: why do you need to commit this into legislation? And the response was, ‘It’s an election commitment; we’re putting it into legislation so it sticks’. Similar was the nurse-to-patient ratio. We asked why you needed to put it into legislation and not just go ahead with what you had committed to, and the answer was not dissimilar—that you wanted to commit it into legislation to make sure it actually happened. Why wouldn’t you use those two examples to reflect the commitment that Mr Bourman and I ask of you today?
Ms PULFORD: Well, we are in the Parliament debating a bill that gives effect to the election commitment. I know you have a different view on how you would design it if you were in Minister Horne’s shoes, but this is the bill that the government is presenting and it is the bill that we are asking people to support this evening.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Just one final question on this clause before I defer to my learned colleague. Minister, on behalf of Minister Horne, who you represent in this matter, will Minister Horne take full accountability for committing to making sure that actually does happen and, should it not, take accountability for this?
Ms PULFORD: Well, to the extent that I can make a commitment on behalf of another person, yes. It is absolutely and clearly the government’s position, so in that respect my position on this and Minister Horne’s position on this are the same, which is the government’s position, which is that every cent will be invested into facilities and safety for boaters.
Committee divided on amendments:
| Ayes, 16 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Meddick, Mr |
| Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | ||
| Noes, 20 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Symes, Ms | |
Amendments negatived.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, I invite you to move your amendment 1, which is a test for your amendments 2 and 3.
Mr ONDARCHIE: I move:
1. Clause 3, page 4, line 8, after “Fund” insert “and the sources of all that money”.
This serves as a test for my second and third amendments as well. It goes to the reporting on this Better Boating Fund. We have made some amendments that in fact grow the commitment. Rather than reporting on a website but not in the annual report, which is what the government is proposing, our amendment in a sense says that it must be reported to both houses of the Parliament so we can actually see what happened and make sure the government’s verbal commitment—the commitment they refuse to put in legislation—actually transpires and does what they say it is going to do. The only way we can do that is by having the report come to the houses of Parliament and not via some website. They have avoided putting it in the annual report, so that is what our amendments essentially go to.
Mr BOURMAN: I actually agree with Mr Ondarchie. I do not see the problem with putting a report to the Parliament, and I would suggest people should vote for it.
Dr CUMMING: Yes, I am all about consulting and more reporting, so I agree with the amendment. As well, I know from my consultation that it has been a big bugbear for current councils regarding boat ramps within those areas that they are not seeing the funds being transferred to them, so it has been a cost on a lot of local councils. Many in my community are thankful for the government’s bill, but in the same breath the burden on local government has been quite high.
Ms PULFORD: Look, just briefly, I think the issues around local government probably relate to matters separate from the substantive question before the house in the bill, but it is fair to recognise that there are highly variable experiences. There are some councils that put a lot of investment into their facilities; there are others that actually derive income from the operation of their facilities. So there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
This amendment from Mr Ondarchie is not one that the government will be supporting. But just to describe the context for those that do not have the running sheet, while Mr Ondarchie’s amendment about reporting is not one the government is supporting, further in the committee stage—not very many minutes from now, I imagine—Mr Bourman will have an amendment that provides for additional reporting that the government is supporting. I would also refer members to the statement and the commitment made by Minister Horne published, I believe, earlier in the week.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 16 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | ||
| Noes, 20 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms | |
Amendment negatived.
Mr BOURMAN: I move:
3. Clause 3, page 4, lines 11 to 13, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert—
“(c) the purposes and allocation of any money paid out of the Better Boating Fund, including—
(i) a description of the project or program to which the money has been allocated; and
(ii) if the allocation of money relates to the establishment, upgrade, maintenance or repair of a boating facility, the location of the boating facility;”.
Amendment 3, whilst it is separate from amendment 4, is along the same lines. It is to do with reporting on how the money gets spent, and even though this is not part of clause 3 or clause 4, that it gets put on the internet—the purposes and allocation of any money paid out of the Better Boating Fund, including a description of the project or program to which the money has been allocated and if the money allocated relates to the establishment, upgrade and so on. It is about the transparency of the money that has been spent.
Mr ONDARCHIE: The Liberal-Nationals coalition will be supporting Mr Bourman’s amendment. Whilst I have some disappointment that the government have refused to report this to the Parliament, at the very least we can have it on a website for a longer period of time so people can see what is going on. If you are in any doubt as to whether you should support this or not, we should support some public transparency on this, and putting it on a website for a longer period of time gives that. Then again, if we believe everything we see on a website, Trump would have won the election really easily. But at the very least, given the government have refused to report this to the Parliament, we can have it on the website for a longer period of time so the boaties and the families and those who pay their licence fees can actually get some transparency as to where their money goes.
Ms PULFORD: I thank Mr Bourman for moving this amendment, which the government will support. We have clearly and repeatedly committed to ensuring that every cent of fee and licence revenue from the issue and renewal of marine licences and vehicle registrations will be deposited into the Better Boating Fund. This bill together with this amendment will provide for transparent public reporting on revenue in the spirit of what Mr Ondarchie has just been talking about. It will be very clear to all stakeholders that this commitment will have been honoured and will continue to be honoured. Should the bill be passed the government will have two reporting periods within this current term to demonstrate that every cent of revenue from marine licensing and vehicle registration is indeed being placed into the fund and spent on purposes as specified in the bill. We did not think it was necessary to enshrine in legislation. We believe that we can provide that certainty by making the commitments that we have because we have a demonstrated capability of delivering on our election commitments, and we have no intention that this would be an exception to that rule.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ONDARCHIE: It is late in the day on a Thursday. I move:
4. Clause 3, page 4, after line 32 insert—
“(2A) On or before the 7th sitting day after the Minister receives the report under subsection (1), the Minister must ensure that a copy of the report is laid before each House of the Parliament.”.
This amendment inserts a new subsection into the legislation to require the minister to table financial reports in the Parliament by the seventh sitting day after receipt. We want to see what is going on.
Ms PULFORD: It is just an extension of the discussion we have been having for the last little while. The government will not be supporting this amendment.
Committee divided on amendment:
| Ayes, 15 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Noes, 21 | ||
| Cumming, Dr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
Amendment negatived.
Mr BOURMAN: I move:
4. Clause 3, page 5, after line 6 insert—
“(3A) The report published under subsection (3) must remain on the internet site administered by the Department until the report for the next financial year is published under that subsection.”.
It is basically consequential to clause 3, that the report will be published on the internet site administered by the department until the report for the next financial year, so basically it gets updated yearly. I guess as much as I think Mr Ondarchie’s amendments of this nature could have been taken on board, if this is what we get, I thank the government.
Mr ONDARCHIE: The Liberal-Nationals coalition will be supporting Mr Bourman’s amendment. We want to see much more accountability from this government. As we have seen over the last seven months, this government lacks a lot of accountability, so here is an opportunity to find some way to make them accountable.
Ms PULFORD: The government will be supporting Mr Bourman’s amendment 4. But just in response to the comments around accountability and transparency of the finances in this fund, subsection (4) of the new section 271H to be established through the bill specifies that:
The requirements in this section are in addition to any other requirements applying to the Better Boating Fund under Part 7 of the Financial Management Act …
This is important, given the interest by boaties and by members in this reporting and transparency. So under part 7 of the Financial Management Act 1994 the secretary is required to keep proper records of all financial transactions relating to the fund and must prepare a financial statement for the fund and an associated report of operations. That is sections 44 and 45. These reports must be provided to the Auditor-General within eight weeks of the end of the financial year. Further, it is specified that the financial statement and the report of the operations must be laid before each house of Parliament on or before the first sitting day in November each year—section 46.
Accordingly, by virtue of the operation of these requirements in the Financial Management Act, it is already necessary for information on the financials in the Better Boating Fund and operations to be tabled in the Parliament. That might give Mr Ondarchie some comfort that what he was seeking in effect already occurs through the provisions in the Financial Management Act and the way that this fund will relate with those existing arrangements. So there will be that transparency to the Parliament as well as, through Mr Bourman’s amendment, on a website, which of course is I guess for a different audience. But this information will be made available to the Parliament as well as to the public through the website.
Mr Ondarchie interjected.
Ms PULFORD: On the website it will be a detailed breakdown. Yes, both. It will be a detailed report in both.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr ONDARCHIE: I move:
5. Clause 3, page 5, line 10, omit ‘1994.”.’ and insert “1994.”.
6. Clause 3, page 5, after line 10 insert—
‘271I Payment of registration fees into the Better Boating Fund
Fees received under this Act in relation to the registration, renewal and transfer of registration of recreational vessels must be paid into the Better Boating Fund.
271J Payment of licence fees into the Better Boating Fund
Fees received under this Act in relation to the grant, renewal and endorsement of marine licences must be paid into the Better Boating Fund.”.’.
These essentially insert new sections 271I and 271J into the principal act to require all marine licence fees and recreational vessel registration fees to be paid into the Better Boating Fund, getting that assurance—for those who are in any doubt here about how they should vote on this—for those Victorians who have paid their money for their boating registration or their licences, that it goes into that fund, that it is worthy of that support.
Mr BOURMAN: I am going to support this amendment, obviously. I have noted the minister’s repeated guarantees, or however you want to put it, that all of the money will be put in the fund, so I do not see why it would hurt to put this in legislation.
Ms PULFORD: We do not believe this is necessary, so we will not be supporting Mr Ondarchie’s amendments.
Committee divided on amendments:
| Ayes, 16 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | Meddick, Mr |
| Barton, Mr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | ||
| Noes, 20 | ||
| Elasmar, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Symes, Ms | |
Amendments negatived.
Amended clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Reported to house with amendment.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:30): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:30): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendment.
Food Amendment Bill 2020
Introduction and first reading
The PRESIDENT (19:31): I have a message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and for other purposes’.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:31): I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:
That the second reading be taken forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:31): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Food Amendment Bill 2020 (Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the Charter as it does not engage any human rights in the Charter.
Jaclyn Symes MP
Minister for Regional Development
Minister for Agriculture
Minister for Resources
Second reading
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:31): I move:
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PULFORD: I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
This Bill seeks to make several amendments to the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. The aim of the majority of these amendments is to support more consistent and transparent regulatory practice across Victoria’s 79 local governments. For small businesses such a cafes and restaurants, hairdressers and beauty therapists, it is now more important than ever, to ensure that their experience in dealing with local councils for their registration and their public health regulatory requirements is uncomplicated and supportive. Whether these businesses are recommencing after the COVID-19 restrictions have been relaxed or they are new businesses opening, we must continue to make it easier to do business in Victoria, whilst supporting businesses to comply with public health requirements to keep our community safe.
I will now turn to the specific amendments.
The first set of amendments relate to the introduction of a state-wide, online combined business application portal and council reporting and compliance management database which, for ease, I will refer to as the online portal. Development of the online portal is a key deliverable in a series of food safety regulatory reforms that respond to the Andrews Labor Government’s Small Business Regulation Review conducted by Small Business Victoria from 2016 to 2018. A significant part of that review examined the body of regulation affecting Victorian small businesses in the retail sector, of which food businesses are a significant component. The review concluded that many of the problems experienced by small food business owners relate to how different councils interpret and apply food safety laws. The review led to an extensive food safety regulation reform program promoting and facilitating consistent regulatory practice under the Victorian Food Act 1984.
The new online portal is a key element of these reforms. It will provide a single point for online registration for Victoria’s 70,000 fixed, mobile and temporary food businesses, and a database for use by councils in the management of registration, compliance and reporting processes under the Food Act 1984. The online portal will also be available to over 11,000 Victorian small businesses, such as hairdressers and tattooists, that are regulated by councils under the requirements of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
The online portal is due to be implemented in 2021 and will realise several benefits for councils including managing regulatory compliance data through a single government-managed contract with an IT provider; reporting efficiencies to the Department of Health and Human Services; and, consistency of data across the state, thereby facilitating council operating decisions and benchmarking.
The Department of Health and Human Services has undertaken an extensive co-design process for the online portal. That process has welcomed the participation of all 79 local councils, the Municipal Association of Victoria and representatives of key small business industry bodies including the Restaurant & Catering Industry Association, Victorian Farmers’ Market Association, Hosted Accommodation Australia, and the Australian Mobile Food Vendors Group (Victoria).
The outcome of the co-design process is a comprehensive set of system design requirements and user-interface designs that will support the regulatory management of all Victorian food businesses as well as businesses regulated under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
Councils’ use of the online portal will be voluntary. This is because all councils currently have contracts with one of five vendors for systems to manage their regulatory functions. However, it is anticipated that many councils will see the benefits of the online portal and choose to use it.
All councils are likely to use the online portal for temporary and mobile food premises, which include water carters and food vending machines. These premises are extremely difficult and costly for councils to manage without a supporting information technology system. Such a system is already provided by the Department of Health and Human Services for these types of food business only. It is currently accessed by councils and businesses free of charge but operates at a material cost to the Department of Health and Human Services. As soon as the online portal is operational and able to be used for the registration of the full range of food businesses, that system will be decommissioned, and all registrations contained in it will be migrated across to the new online portal free of charge.
Councils who wish to use the online portal, will be required to pay a user charge, which in most cases will be payable annually. Mandating the payment of that charge is the first of the amendments to the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 being sought by the Bill. The user charge allows the Department of Health and Human Services to support the recovery of costs incurred in the implementation and ongoing maintenance of the online portal.
The way the user charge will be calculated will be determined by the Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Municipal Association of Victoria and local councils. It is anticipated that the user charge will take into account the maintenance costs of the system incurred by the Department of Health and Human Services and the number and type of businesses registered and managed by a council on the online portal and declared in the Government Gazette.
For those councils that choose to use the online portal, significant changes are not expected to the current costs that they incur in registering and regulating fixed premises under the Food Act 1984 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. There are likely to be some small costs incurred associated with the registration of temporary and mobile food premises on the online portal with the transfer from the current free of charge online system.
The Bill seeks to make a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Food Act 1984 to improve its administration and local government consistency.
Most of the miscellaneous amendments introduced by this Bill are either technical in nature or seek to make changes which will improve Council’s current administrative practice. These include requirements to notify the registering authority on change of business ownership and greater clarity in managing food businesses’ changes to their food safety programs.
The Bill also introduces amendments to assist compliance officers in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions who administer the parts of the Food Act 1984 concerned with the administration of the Primary Food Production and Processing Standards for Eggs and Egg Products and for Seed Sprouts. These amendments will provide additional enforcement powers to close enforcement gaps and to support more effective administration of the Standards.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:32): I move, on behalf of my colleague Ms Crozier:
That debate on this bill be adjourned for one week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.
Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020
Introduction and first reading
The PRESIDENT (19:33): I have another message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Electricity Industry Act 2000 and the Gas Industry Act 2001 to enable the Minister to impose conditions on licences issued under those Acts and to make consequential amendments to the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 and for other purposes’.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:33): I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:
That the second reading be taken forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:33): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
Opening paragraphs
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the ‘Charter’), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Bill amends the Electricity Industry Act 2000 (EIA) and the Gas Industry Act 2001 (GIA) to enable the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to make Orders specifying conditions applying to licences issued under those Acts. Before making an Order, the Minister must: consult affected licensees; consult the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister administering the Essential Services Commission Act 2001; and have regard to any significant costs and benefits the Minister considers are likely to arise out of the making of the Order.
Human Rights Issues
Human rights protected by the Charter Act that are relevant to the Bill
The Bill does not engage any human rights protected by the Charter.
The Charter sets out the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of people in Victoria. Whilst the Bill enables an Order to be made specifying conditions applying to licences under the EIA and GIA, licensees include retail, distribution, wholesale, generation and transmission companies. The human rights of individuals are not engaged by the Bill.
Consideration of reasonable limitations—section 7(2)
As the Bill does not engage any human rights protected by the Charter, it does not limit any human rights and therefore it is not necessary to consider section 7(2) of the Charter.
Conclusion
It is my view that the Bill is compatible with the human rights as set out in the Charter.
Hon Shaun Leane MP
Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans
Second reading
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:34): I move:
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PULFORD: I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
Energy is an essential service. Access to a reliable, sustainable and affordable energy supply is vital to the wellbeing of all Victorians. Businesses in Victoria’s electricity and gas industries are engaged in the provision of an essential service and are subject to a licensing framework administered by the Essential Services Commission (ESC).
Licences are an important instrument through which energy companies are regulated, and licence conditions cover a wide range of matters. Currently, licence conditions can only be imposed by the ESC, or through amendments to primary legislation. The Electricity Industry Act 2000 (EIA) and the Gas Industry Act 2001 (GIA) set out a number of licence conditions that are deemed to form part of electricity and gas licences. The reforms in this Bill will enable the Minister responsible for administration of the EIA and GIA to make Orders specifying conditions of licences. This will provide a more direct, flexible and timely mechanism, subject to appropriate safeguards, to give effect to Government objectives with respect to regulation of the licensed energy sector.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill will amend the EIA and GIA to enable the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to make Orders imposing conditions on licences issued under those Acts. Orders must be published in the Government Gazette and may specify licence conditions applying to particular licensees or a class of licensees (to be known as Ministerial licence conditions). Orders may also vary or revoke Ministerial licence conditions.
The proposed power to specify Ministerial licence conditions is additional to the ESC’s existing power to impose conditions on licences. If an inconsistency arises between a Ministerial licence condition and a condition imposed by the ESC, the Bill provides that the Ministerial licence condition will prevail.
The Bill sets out a number of preconditions to the making of an Order by the Minister. To ensure fairness to licensees, the Minister must consult with affected licensees before making an Order imposing conditions applying to these licensees. Licensees must be given an opportunity to make representations on the proposed licence condition, and the Minister must have regard to any such representations.
The Minister must also consult the Premier, the Treasurer, and the Minister administering the Essential Services Commission Act 2001. This will ensure that potentially significant decisions on licence conditions are considered at appropriately senior levels of Government, and that the Minister with oversight of the ESC is consulted on matters potentially impacting on the ESC, which will be required to monitor and enforce compliance with such conditions.
Finally, the Minister must have regard to the costs and benefits arising from the licence condition. This will ensure that any significant costs and benefits that are likely to result from a licence condition being imposed are appropriately considered.
Compliance and enforcement
Energy licensees are subject to a stringent compliance and enforcement regime overseen by the ESC. As with existing licence conditions, energy licensees who breach Ministerial licence conditions will be subject to potential compliance and enforcement action by the ESC using its powers under the Essential Services Commission Act.
The Victorian Government has committed to overhauling and significantly increasing penalties for energy companies that do the wrong thing as part of its Energy Fairness Plan, as well as strengthening the ESC’s enforcement powers so it is able to more effectively regulate the energy sector. These matters will be the subject of forthcoming reforms. In May 2019, the ESC was given a $27.3 million funding boost over four years to enable it to take strong action against wrongdoing by energy companies. Also in 2019, the Government appointed a new ESC Commissioner with expertise in litigation and enforcement, another key commitment of its Energy Fairness Plan.
Electricity connections
The Bill will also make amendments to the EIA and the National Electricity (Victoria) Act 2005 to ensure that timeframes for electricity connections can be regulated under a licence condition (including as a Ministerial licence condition). Improving the timeliness of electricity connections to new developments is a matter of high priority to Government, particularly at a time when Victoria’s construction industry and housing supply is a critical enabler of economic recovery. The need to improve timeliness of electricity connections has been recognised in a number of recent reviews, and through the Victorian Government’s engagement with key industry stakeholders, including by Victoria’s Red Tape Commissioner, the Building Victoria’s Recovery Taskforce, and the ESC.
This Bill will improve the regulation of Victoria’s licensed energy sector and support the provision of reliable, sustainable and affordable energy.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:34): I move, on behalf of my colleague the Honourable Gordon Rich-Phillips:
That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.
Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Introduction and first reading
The PRESIDENT (19:34): I have another message:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Accident Towing Services Act 2007, the Heavy Vehicle National Law Application Act 2013, the Rail Management Act 1996, the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2019 and for other purposes’.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:35): I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:
That the second reading be taken forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:35): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to various transport Acts. Some of these amendments relate to compulsory acquisition of land and the disposal of goods. To this extent, the Bill contains some provisions which may engage rights that are protected under the Charter.
Human rights issues
Right to property
Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.
Compulsory acquisition of private railway crossings and adjoining land
Clause 7 of the Bill inserts new Division 1B of Part 4 into the Rail Management Act 1996 (RMA), which provides the Secretary to the Department of Transport (Secretary) with the power to close private railway crossings by a process similar to a notice of acquisition under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 (LACA). This new scheme engages the right to property. New section 67J defines “private crossing” as meaning a gate, bridge, easement, road, right-of-way, crossing, passage or work that provides access to private land over a railway track and that is on land on which the railway track is situated (but does not include a public highway or public road within the meaning of the Road Management Act 2004). “Private crossing right” is defined as meaning any right to use or have maintained a private crossing arising from or by reason of the giving of a notice to a person under section 43(2) and (3) of the LACA and “private crossing adjoining land” is defined as land adjoining land on which a private crossing is situated (section 67J). A private crossing right is an accrued right in the nature of a proprietary right in rem, akin to an easement or a right-of-way. New section 67U provides that the effect of a notice of closure is that: the private crossing identified in the notice is closed; any private crossing right in relation to that private crossing ceases and is extinguished; any interest in the land on which the private crossing is situated that forms part of or relates to the private crossing right, in the nature of an easement or right-of-way, is divested; and any obligation on a person to maintain the private crossing ceases and is extinguished. The Secretary may also acquire private crossing adjoining land by agreement or by compulsory process (section 67Y). These provisions therefore authorise actions and decisions that will result in a deprivation of property. However, in my view, any deprivation of property will likely be in accordance with law, and therefore will not limit the right to property under section 20 of the Charter.
The powers to close private rail crossings and private crossing adjoining land must be exercised in accordance with the new scheme and are unlikely to be arbitrary. The Secretary may only close a private crossing in accordance with Subdivision 2 of new Division 1B of Part 4 of the RMA if the Secretary considers it necessary or desirable for the management or development of the transport system (section 67L). Similarly, the Secretary may only acquire private crossing adjoining land if the Secretary considers the closing of a private crossing necessary or desirable for the management or development of the transport system, and access to private crossing adjoining land on one side of the railway would be removed or significantly affected as a result of the closure (section 67Y). If the Secretary intends to close a private crossing, the Secretary must serve on any owner and any occupier of private crossing adjoining land that the Secretary, after diligent inquiry, believes may have a private crossing right in relation to the private crossing, and any person with an interest in the private crossing adjoining land in relation to the private crossing of whom the Secretary is aware (section 67M). The notice to close must specify, amongst other things, the reason why the private crossing is to be closed and request the person on whom the notice has been served to advise the Secretary of various matters, including of any other persons who, to the knowledge of the owner or occupier on whom the notice has been served, may have an interest or right in relation to the private crossing (section 67N). Subject to an extension or abridgment of time under new section 67ZC(1), the Secretary must not close a private crossing in respect of which a notice of intention to close has been served before the expiration of 2 months after the service of that notice (section 67R). The notice lapses if the relevant private crossing is not closed within 6 months (section 67P).
The power to compulsorily acquire private crossing adjoining land is lawful as it must be exercised in accordance with the LACA. It is a necessary power to acquire adjoining land in circumstances where a private crossing is closed, access to the adjoining land is lost and no alternative access can be provided, rendering the adjoining land inaccessible. The LACA Act (including the compensation scheme under Part 3 of that Act) applies to the acquisition of private crossing adjoining land (section 67Z), while the closing of a private crossing gives rise to a right to compensation for financial loss suffered as a result of the closing of the private crossing (section 67V). The amount of compensation following closure of a private crossing must be assessed by reference to any diminution in the market value of the owner’s or occupier’s interest (as the case requires) in the private crossing adjoining land caused by the closing of the private crossing and any other financial loss suffered or expenses incurred as a natural, direct and reasonable consequence of the closing of the private crossing that is not included in the diminution in the market value of the owner’s or occupier’s interest (section 67V(2)).
Sale or disposal of motor vehicles and items deemed to be abandoned
Part 6A of the Road Safety Act 1986 (RSA) sets out a detailed scheme for the impoundment, immobilisation and forfeiture of motor vehicles with respect to certain offences. Under the current scheme, vehicles are meant to be collected after the impoundment period ends and the designated impoundment costs are paid. If a vehicle is not collected, it may be deemed to be abandoned and then sold.
The Bill makes the following amendments to the scheme which engage, but do not limit, the right to property:
• Clause 46 of the Bill amends section 84ZQAB(2)(b)(i) of the RSA to reduce the period in which an uncollected vehicle will be deemed not to be abandoned from 30 days to 14 days. Clause 47 makes a consequential amendment to section 84ZQAC(4) which also refers to the 30 day period, reducing it to 14 days.
• Clause 48 of the Bill amends section 84ZQAD(5)(b) to only permit the court to make an order that a motor vehicle is not abandoned if it is satisfied the applicant has a genuine intention to collect or arrange for the release of the motor vehicle within 2 months of it being made available for collection or release. This limits the circumstances in which a court may determine that a vehicle is not abandoned, thereby enabling a vehicle to be sold or disposed of more quickly.
• Clause 45 amends section 84ZQ, which provides that the sale or disposal of uncollected motor vehicles cannot occur until certain proceedings have been finalised, to clarify that the reference to “proceedings” is not intended to include matters relating to the recovery of unpaid fines.
To the extent that these clauses could be considered to deprive a person of property, any such deprivation of property will be appropriately tailored and confined. Section 84ZQAB (amended by clause 46) is subject to procedural protections, including notice requirements. The notification process to have a vehicle deemed to be abandoned can only commence seven days after an impounded vehicle becomes available for collection, and there are certain circumstances in which vehicles may not be sold or disposed of (see right to fair hearing for further discussion). The purpose of clause 48 is to bring section 84ZQAD in line with section 84ZQ of the RSA, which provides that an impounded or immobilised vehicle may be sold or disposed of if it is not collected or released within 2 months of being made available for collection or release.
Therefore, any deprivation of property that may occur under this Division is appropriately confined and would be in accordance with law. Consequently, section 20 of the Charter is not limited.
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 right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.
Clause 4 amends section 156 of the Accident Towing Services Act 2007 to provide that it is a defence to the offence of failure to release a vehicle to its owner if the person is owed money by the owner in respect of salvage fees. This provision creates an evidentiary burden on the accused, in that it requires the accused to raise evidence in relation to the unpaid salvage fees in order to make out the defence. However, in doing so, it does not transfer the legal burden. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of the unpaid fees, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence.
I do not consider that an evidential onus of the kind in the above provision limits the right to be presumed innocent, and courts in other jurisdictions have taken this approach. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this provision is compatible with the right to the presumption of innocence.
Hon Jaala Pulford MP
Minister for Employment
Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy
Minister for Small Business
Second reading
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:35): I move:
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PULFORD: I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
Objectives of the Bill
The objectives of the Bill are to support the delivery of Big Build projects, meet Government policy commitments and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of regulation.
Support the delivery of Big Build projects
Our Big Build program of works is continuing across metropolitan and regional Victoria. The works deliver much needed transport solutions, but also create jobs and assist in our economic recovery from Covid-19.
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 1,000 jobs. These upgrades will often enable more services or faster services, however some amendment to legislation is required to deliver the program safely.
Victoria has a limited number of private level crossings that were created under the Land Compensation Act 1869. These crossings, on private land, originate from the period when the rail corridor was first created.
In order to ensure the safety of rail line upgrades, the 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 process under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The State will also be able to acquire surplus land, and the compensation process will include this land. Alternative access may also be provided if it is feasible to do so.
The Big Build also benefits local government, as major projects often entail upgrades to the surrounding local infrastructure. Victoria is building more infrastructure than ever before, and new bodies such as the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority (MTIA) are delivering the Big Build across multiple modes of transport.
The Road Management Act 2004 allocates responsibility for public roads to state agencies and municipal councils. The Act needs to be updated so that on-going responsibilities for infrastructure built by the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority and other delivery bodies can be allocated between state and local government road managers in line with the normal split of responsibilities under the Act. The Bill will amend the definition of ‘road infrastructure’ to enable works by the MTIA and other agencies such as the Suburban Rail Loop Authority to be captured, where the works are on road infrastructure.
Meeting Government policy commitments
The unprecedented program of works currently being undertaken disrupts the network and inconveniences people. It is short term pain for long term gain, but we are working to minimise those disruptions. People are understandably exasperated when a closed worksite is still slowing speeds and delaying traffic. Our ‘safer speeds, safer sites’ policy requires the lifting of speed limits around construction areas when construction work finishes for the day. The 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.
Under a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and the State, Victoria committed to negotiating a new 99-year lease with the Australian Rail Track Corporation. The long lease time is necessary to give the Commonwealth certainty around its future investments in inland rail. The Bill amends the Transport Integration Act 2010 to put it beyond doubt that VicTrack can enter long term leases over crown land for rail infrastructure related purposes.
Better regulation
Impounding vehicles for hoon offences has clear road safety benefits. Separating the vehicle from the offender creates a practical barrier to further offending as well as creating a disincentive to offend or re-offend. However, the impoundment regime comes with significant costs.
In 2018–19, there were 11,090 vehicles impounded. Of these, 2,882 vehicles were deemed abandoned. Most of the cars that are abandoned are so old or in such a poor state that they are not worth the cost required for people to pick them up from the impoundment facility. Abandoned vehicles are putting police storage facilities under strain. The 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 to be abandoned is 37 days. That is made up of a waiting period of 7 days and a notice period of 30 days. The Bill will reduce the notice period from 30 days to 14 days. There is a hardship scheme for those people who cannot afford to collect the car 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 vehicle for training purposes, prior to disposal. Only vehicles of negligible sale value will be destroyed for training purposes.
In response to industry requests, the Bill amends the Accident Towing Act 2007 to allow a tow truck driver to transport other people such as their family members when the vehicle is not being used for accident towing.
Tow truck operators have a legal right to withhold a vehicle when payment has not been received for towing and storage. The Bill will extend this to enable a vehicle to be withheld from its owner if the vehicle owner has not paid for salvage.
In December 2019, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator took over responsibility for the enforcement of offences involving the use of heavy vehicles. To support better integration between national and state regulatory functions the state entered a service level agreement for the enforcement of state road safety offences concurrent to the national regulators work on the enforcement of national heavy vehicle laws. Transitional provisions enable enforcement officers previously employed by VicRoads that transferred to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator to continue to exercise powers they were previously authorised to exercise under the Road Safety Act 1986 and Road Management Act 2004. The Bill will enable other staff of the national regulator to be authorised to carry out compliance and enforcement activities under the Road Safety Act 1986 and the Road Management Act 2004 so that the requirements of the service level agreement can be efficiently and effectively discharged by the national regulator.
More effective road safety regulation
Drivers of ‘large vehicles’, defined as a bus or a vehicle or vehicle combination over 15 tonnes, are required to have a 0.00 blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC). Taxis and rideshare drivers must also have a 0.00 BAC while working.
Conversely, 12 tonne rigid and flatbed trucks (‘heavy vehicles’) are not currently subject to a 0.00 BAC. To improve safety and address inconsistencies, the Bill will introduce a 0.00 BAC requirement for all drivers of heavy vehicles, defined as vehicles and vehicle combinations more than 4.5 tonnes. The change will not capture tradespeople with utes or people who hire a van on a standard licence (for example, to move to a new house). It will capture the trucks that require a special licence.
Similarly, the Bill will ensure that emerging motorized personal mobility technology can be appropriately regulated. In particular, the Bill will enable application of drink driving and drug driving restrictions to these vehicles, if their use is permitted by Government under the road rules.
The Bill will also amend the Road Safety Act 1986 to increase penalties in a limited number of high-risk areas.
The penalties for drink or drug driving by a driver supervising a learner driver will increase from 5 to 20 penalty units. These offences by a supervising driver are unacceptable and a significant deterrent is warranted. The change reflects the serious risks posed by learner drivers who are not appropriately supervised while driving and aligns the penalty with that applicable to similar offences.
The penalties for breaching alcohol interlock conditions are low relative to the risks the behaviour represents and the penalties for unlicensed driving more generally. Breaching an interlock condition is a form of disqualified driving and the Bill will raise the penalty to mirror those for disqualified driving. The maximum penalty for breaching interlock conditions or unlicensed driving where the driver should have had an interlock will be increase from 60 to 240 penalty units or imprisonment for two years.
Conclusion
This Bill is about delivering on our Big Build program of works and our policy commitments. In addition to this, the Bill improves the efficiency and effectiveness of some regulatory schemes, including making our roads safer.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:36): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr O’Donohue:
That debate on this matter be adjourned for one week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.
Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020
Introduction and first reading
The PRESIDENT (19:36): I have another message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to make miscellaneous amendments to the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012, the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012, the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018, the Rooming House Operators Act 2016, the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and the Working with Children Act 2005, to make statute law revision amendments to consumer Acts and for other purposes’.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:37): I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms PULFORD: I move, by leave:
That the second reading be taken forthwith.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:37): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020.
In my opinion, the Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 (the Bill), as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill makes miscellaneous amendments to various consumer Acts. Some of these amendments relate to information sharing, other protective regulatory provisions, and the disposal of goods. To this extent, the Bill contains some provisions which may engage rights that are protected under the Charter.
Human rights issues
Rights to privacy and reputation
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Section 13(b) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. A number of provisions in the Bill engage the rights to privacy and reputation; however, in my view, none of them limits the rights.
The Bill amends the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to insert various information-sharing functions which engage the right to privacy.
The Bill also amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to require the identity of registered keno players to be verified by keno licence holders. The following new provisions engage the right to privacy:
• New section 6A.3.34D provides that a keno licensee must ensure that a registered player’s identity is verified in accordance with the conditions of the licensee’s keno licence.
• New section 6A.3.34F provides that, on the written request of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (the Commission), a keno licensee must provide the Commission with a list of all of the licensee’s registered players. Penalties attach to non-compliance.
The requirement that a registered player has their identity verified prior to playing, alongside the Commission’s power to request a list of registered players, may interfere with an individual’s right to privacy by providing the government visibility over an individual’s gaming activities. However, this interference with the right to privacy is not unlawful as it is authorised by the Bill. Further, it is not arbitrary; the amendments mirror existing requirements for other Victorian gambling licensees, the purpose of which is to mitigate the risks associated with electronic gambling accounts, such as underage gambling and identity fraud.
The Bill also amends the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (the VCAT Act) to provide for an information sharing function between the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria (the Director) and the Residential Tenancies Bond Authority (the RTBA). Clause 103 of the Bill inserts new section 147A into the VCAT Act, which provides VCAT with a function to provide data to the Director and to the RTBA.
The ability to share certain information with the Director is necessary for the operation of the rental non-compliance register established by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018, the purpose of which is to list residential rental providers and agents who fail to meet their obligations. The secrecy requirements in section 34 of the VCAT Act would otherwise inhibit VCAT from providing any data to the Department of Justice and Community Safety to populate the register. The information to be provided to the Director is limited to information required to maintain the register, being the name and address of the residential rental provider, the business name and business address of the residential rental provider’s agent (if any), the date of the order, and the provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 that the residential rental provider was found to have breached (if noted on the order). Similarly, by reason of section 34 of the VCAT Act, VCAT would otherwise be unable to provide information to the RTBA for the purposes of confirming that an application has been made to VCAT in respect of a bond in the case of a disputed bond claim or details of any order made by VCAT in respect of the apportionment of a bond. The information to be provided to the RTBA pursuant to new section 147A is limited to the names of each of the parties to an application to VCAT concerning a claim for repayment of a bond, the address of the rented premised in respect of which the bond is held, the business name and business address of the residential rental provider’s agent (if listed on the application), the date of the application, and the bond number assigned to the bond by the RTBA (if disclosed on the application to VCAT). Therefore, any interference with privacy under new section 147A will be lawful, by virtue of the clause itself, which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and is proportionate to the legitimate aim sought.
Hon Shaun Leane MP
Minister for Local Government
Minister for Suburban Development
Minister for Veterans
Second reading
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (19:37): I move:
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
I want to draw to the attention of the house amendments that were made in the Assembly. The amendments were made to this bill in the Assembly following its introduction. The amendments omit proposed amendments to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 and the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015 because those amendments have been progressed in the Justice Legislation Amendment (Supporting Victims and Other Matters) Bill 2020. The amendments do the following:
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. Clauses 105 to 112, omit these clauses.
4. Part heading preceding clause 113, omit this heading.
5. Clauses 113 to 117, omit these clauses.
6. Long title, omit “the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996, the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015.
In addition, the house amendments passed by the Legislative Assembly removed the bill’s amendments to the Working with Children Act 2005. These provisions were replicated and progressed through the Worker Screening Act 2020, which attained royal assent in October 2020. The amendments do the following:
1. Clause 1, page 3, lines 26 to 34, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
2. Part heading preceding clause 118, omit this heading.
3. Clauses 118 to 133, omit these clauses.
4. Long title, omit “and the Working with Children Act 2005,”.
In addition, the second-reading speech and statement of compatibility have been updated to reflect these amendments.
Mr Rich-Phillips: On a point of order, President, the bill that has been circulated is the Assembly introduction copy of the bill dated 16 June this year, which obviously does not have the amendments the minister has referred to. I am wondering if we could clarify when we will get the bill that actually reflects what the minister has spoken about.
The PRESIDENT: The bill will be sent by Monday.
Mr Rich-Phillips: On the point of order, President, maybe we should not introduce it now.
The PRESIDENT: I will call the minister to make a full explanation.
Ms PULFORD: I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his point of order. The update that I provided to the house describes the house amendments from the Assembly and their purpose. The second-reading speech that has been incorporated reflects those amendments. The updated print of the bill, I am advised, is going to the printer tonight and will be made available on Monday.
Mr Rich-Phillips: I just seek your clarification, President, because the bill that is in the hands of members of this house now is not the bill the minister is talking about because it has been amended. This is the 16 June copy of the bill. I understand that copies will be available tonight or subsequently, but the bill that has been circulated right now is not the bill that the minister has introduced.
The PRESIDENT: I understand, Mr Rich-Phillips, but the advice I have is that it has been done in this house before.
Mr O’Donohue: Further to the point of order, President, and further to your comments in response to Mr Rich-Phillips, I would be interested to know if there have been bills introduced with such significant differences. The minister read out that basically slabs of the bill have been removed because there have been other bills introduced which have passed through the Parliament and which have done the things that large parts of this bill sought to do as well as other amendments. So much of the bill that was introduced to the Assembly in June is redundant and has passed through both chambers as part of other bills, and I just seek your advice, President. In response to Mr Rich-Phillips you said there have been other occasions where the bill introduced to the Council has been different to the paper version that has been handed around, but I would be surprised if there have been too many examples where there has been such a significant difference—where the bill actually is very different to what is being produced and given to us.
Ms PULFORD: Just on that point of order, in drawing the same conclusions that you have, Mr O’Donohue, about what these amendments do, these are not matters of policy change; these are matters of removal of things that are redundant because they have been, as you described, progressed through other legislation. I am not completely certain of this, but in this pandemic year of disruption to all things I imagine that it has been the changing of dates that has impacted the passage of this legislation, where the more urgent matters have gone through in other bills and this bill is about what remains.
Mr Rich-Phillips: I wonder if the minister can clarify, then, whether the changes to the bill are only omissions or whether there are any changes which add text.
Ms PULFORD: So it is not a bill that I have deep knowledge of, but based on—
A member interjected.
Ms PULFORD: Well, I am sure there are plenty of people with deep knowledge of it, but right here, right now, I am sort of doing the best I can to assist the house. I am happy to share with you the text that I read in so you can have a look at it. But, yes, what I read in is entirely about omissions.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I think that was enough explanation.
Motion agreed to.
Ms PULFORD: I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
The Consumer and Other Acts Miscellaneous Amendments Bill 2020 will make amendments to a range of Acts in the Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Justice portfolios to improve their operation, clarify requirements and update outdated references. It also contains important amendments to establish future gambling licencing arrangements and; support the implementation of the government’s residential tenancies reforms.
Amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003
The Bill will make a significant number of amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to implement future licencing arrangements for the keno and wagering and betting licences in Victoria. The current licences are due to expire in 2022 and 2024, respectively, making this an optimum time to reform and modernise the regulatory framework.
Firstly the Bill will remove the ‘registration of interest’ stage from the wagering and betting licensing process. This amendment will reduce red tape to make the process more efficient for licence applicants and government alike. Importantly, it will do this while maintaining the probity measures that are in place to ensure integrity and fairness throughout the licensing process.
This change will also bring the wagering and betting licensing process into line with the lotteries and keno licensing processes, which already benefit from a more streamlined application process.
The Bill will give the Minister the power to determine how many keno licences should be issued during each licence awarding process, how long their terms should be, and whether they should incorporate any exclusivity periods.
This amendment will give government more flexibility in responding to market conditions when awarding licences. This in turn will allow government to extract maximum value from its keno licences, to the benefit of all Victorians.
The Bill will also give the Minister the power to issue keno harm minimisation directions on a point-of-consumption basis. This means that directions will apply to all gambling providers that provide keno games to Victorians, irrespective of where they are licensed.
This measure represents another important step in protecting Victorians from gambling-related harms. It also brings keno’s harm minimisation measures into line with Victoria’s wagering and betting arrangements, where point-of-consumption harm minimisation measures have been put in place to support the implementation of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering.
Finally, the Bill will strengthen provisions around the management of online keno accounts. 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.
Residential tenancies amendments
The Bill makes a number of 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.
These amendments include:
• clarifying the period within which a renter must reimburse a residential rental provider for the reasonable cost of repairs
• allowing for rental minimum standards to require compliance with an industry or statutory standard
• providing that it is an offence to prepare or authorise the preparation of a fixed-term rooming house agreement, a residency agreement in a caravan park or a site agreement in a Part 4A park (as the case may be) that contain a prohibited term
• amending the new definition of the term “temporary crisis accommodation” to provide flexibility in settling future requirements for the prescription of such accommodation under the Regulations, and
• inserting new provisions to provide for the termination of existing agreements and the creation of new agreements where a party to an agreement has been subject to family or personal violence.
The Bill also carries an amendment to provide for the expiry of COVID-19 emergency measures contained in Part 16 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 on 26 September 2020. This is to ensure alignment with the expiry of the Residential Tenancies (COVID-19 Emergency Measures) Regulations 2020 (COVID-19 Regulations) and facilitate the smooth transition to the commencement of the new rental laws.
Finally, the Bill carries an amendment to the Consumer Legislation Amendment Act 2019 to ensure the residential tenancies amendments carried by that Act can commence at the same time as the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2018.
Other notable amendments
Finally, the Bill also includes two small but important reforms in relation to the Consumer Affairs portfolio.
Firstly, it amends 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. At present, the Act currently specifically refers to the original Agreement and its date of signing—2 July 2009.
Updating this reference will ensure the Act continues to operate effectively, and to avoid the need for future amendments, the revised definition will be capable of applying to any future iteration of the Agreement as well.
Secondly, the Bill also amends the Rooming House Operators Act 2016 to clarify that, where a rooming house operator has applied to the Business Licensing Authority for renewal of their licence within the period permitted by the Act, their existing licence remains in force until a decision has been made to renew or refuse the renewal of the licence. This ensures that existing licenses will remain active whilst renewal applications are being processed and will not expire in the event of any administrative delay.
The Bill delivers a package of reforms to a wide range of consumer laws and in doing so, demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Victorians have strong, fair and workable consumer protections.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:46): I move:
That debate on whatever the new form of the bill is be adjourned for one week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.
Adjournment
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:46): I move:
That the house do now adjourn.
Nillumbik small business
Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (19:46): What a surprise that I am called first, but I will gladly take the slot. My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Small Business, and the action I seek is for her to ask the commissioner for small business to meet with the Shire of Nillumbik and small businesses in Nillumbik to ascertain if council is complying with the Small Business Friendly Council agreement that the commissioner and the shire signed up to in February of this year.
We all know that small business has been doing it tough doing COVID-19, which is why we as a government and particularly this minister have fought hard to secure grants and support for this important sector. I have been receiving some reports from businesses in the shire expressing concerns that council may not be or may not appear to be complying with the spirit of the agreement signed earlier this year. For example, in the lead-up to the introduction of outdoor dining businesses pleaded for weeks to be able to apply for permits. Finally, it was only when it was apparent that the issue may be raised in the media that businesses were sent a link to apply for permits, and this was only the day prior to their introduction. Another business has reported a 12-month process to get a permit to trade, followed by another nine months for the same business to secure a change of hours and be able to trade outdoors. This permit includes a raft of somewhat difficult conditions, including some that say they are not allowed to trade with any windows and doors open. That is going to be difficult of course in this period of COVID-19. A further business was issued with a stamped permit to trade outdoors in a car park. The business then endured a very difficult weekend, with the council’s local law officers expressing down the phone suggestions the police might be called if they did not desist from trading in that car park. None of these examples sound anything like the small business-friendly practices that have been talked about, and it is a great concern that the shire, who have signed up to this agreement, may not be complying.
I want to put on record my congratulations to new councillors elected to the Nillumbik council—Natalie Duffy, Geoff Paine, Frances Eyre, Ben Ramcharan and Richard Stockman—and I congratulate Cr Pete Perkins for being returned, as well as the outgoing mayor, who signed the agreement, Karen Egan. I offer my support and that of my government colleagues Minister Symes and Danielle Green and Vicki Ward from the other place to assist these councillors to get a more friendly business environment in the shire. I have no doubt that the Minister for Small Business will be keen to support those businesses also, and I know she has met with some of them most recently.
Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (19:50): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Community Sport and concerns the Rural City of Wangaratta’s proposed Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre expansion project. The action that I seek from the minister is for her to provide a funding commitment of $10 million to the Rural City of Wangaratta to fully fund the planned expansion of the Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre.
The Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre is part of a regional sports and events precinct servicing the wider Wangaratta community. The centre is currently home to a variety of sports and activities, including basketball, netball and swimming, as well as housing a gymnasium. The Rural City of Wangaratta has recognised that the centre is outdated and currently fails to meet the demands of its users. As such, the council has plans to expand the capacity of the centre to improve customer and user experience as well as enhance the ability of the city to attract large-scale sporting events. The project is also a significant job creator and will assist the economic recovery of the region in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The current basketball area of the centre is too small to host even a domestic competition, and two of the three courts are of insufficient size. The expansion will increase the number of courts to five full-sized courts that will allow increased and safer capacity for players and spectators. The current gymnasium is at capacity, with insufficient space for programs, and this project will significantly increase the gym’s membership and provide additional space for more programs. The expansion will also redevelop the outside netball courts, which are currently not competition sized and are unsafe for players and spectators. The project will create 20 to 30 full-time jobs during the construction phase as well as the addition of full-time employment opportunities ongoing at the centre. When completed the expansion will have a significant impact on the local economy, with increased event hosting resulting in an increase of visitors to the region. A funding commitment of $10 million from the Andrews government will fully fund the project that will provide jobs locally and deliver greatly improved facilities for the community.
Asylum seeker support
Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (19:52): My adjournment is directed to the Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for Higher Education, the Honourable Gayle Tierney, MP. Victoria is home to thousands of asylum seekers and refugees with temporary protection visas, representing one of the most marginalised and vulnerable cohorts in the community. The asylum seeker vocational education and training program provides support to eligible asylum seekers and refugees, exempting them from the usual citizenship requirements and allowing them to access subsidised training in a Victorian TAFE, registered training organisation or Learn Local. The program also allows access to free TAFE. Vocational training breaks down barriers and opens up opportunities for Victorians, and it changes lives. The Andrews Labor government has actively expanded this program, working collaboratively with the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre to give asylum seekers and refugees the support they need to build their lives in Victoria. We know that the coronavirus pandemic has disproportionately impacted vulnerable communities. This program is just one of the many government initiatives to support people into training, providing vital opportunities to those that need it most. The action that I seek is that the minister provide an update on the impact that this program is having on the asylum seekers and refugees living in Victoria, with a particular focus on those in the Northern Metropolitan Region.
Northern Community CareWorks
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:53): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers, and it is about the safety and security of the Northern Community CareWorks stakeholders and volunteers in Preston, in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. Recently Northern Community CareWorks applied for funding through the government to upgrade their security, including an endorsement from the senior constable of the Darebin protective policing unit. To the disappointment of many, they were rejected. Northern Community CareWorks are a really wonderful group of people and they provide a very safe place of support and care for a variety of people, including our most vulnerable. They provide food and clothing to those in desperate need and have been working harder than ever through this time of COVID. They help combat isolation, improve mental health and wellbeing, strengthen the local community and provide access to other support services, such as their health clinic, a community choir, a sewing hub, some games, some shower facilities, a community kitchen and a sensory garden as well. The action I seek from the minister is for the government to provide in their upcoming state budget for the ongoing needs of Northern Community CareWorks and also provide funding so they can update their security system and continue to keep Melbourne’s north’s most vulnerable people safe.
Western Metropolitan Region internet access
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (19:55): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy. The action that I seek is for the state government to provide free internet to all members of the community who do not have regular internet access during all situations where there is a risk to the public, including a state of emergency or disaster. Your government consistently refers the Victorian public to the Department of Health and Human Services website for COVID-19 updates and to VicEmergency for bushfires and other emergencies. It is there they expect to receive the most reliable information. It is there they expect to find out how to protect themselves and others, make sense of often complex restrictions—the dos and do nots—and, just as importantly, find out how to recover.
Census data indicates, however, that 20 per cent of households in Victoria do not have internet. This figure does not account for the homeless or transient populations. It also fails to highlight the communities who cannot afford continuous internet, such as in my region, where in some areas 50 per cent of homes cannot—areas in my community that include some of the most vulnerable and also the most affected by COVID-19. Free public wi-fi is the only time many have internet access, if they have a device to access this on. The most common public spaces with free wi-fi are closed, such as libraries and shopping centres and cafes, but also these spaces are normally where the councils actually have free wi-fi.
Minister, there are people within my community that, prior to this crisis, sat out the front of public buildings after closing to continue to use the internet. As free public wi-fi space has become inaccessible, so too has access to shopping centres for food and essentials and paying their bills. They also obviously need the internet to do their homework and to apply for jobs, as well as for health information, checking emails and connecting with family, friends and the community. How are our vulnerable supposed to stay apart and then stay together without the internet? According to the government’s 2016–20 IT strategy it is an ambition of this government to be digital by default, but it is leaving Victorians behind. Access to information is essential— (Time expired)
COVID-19
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (19:58): I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Premier. Now, Victorians this year have had it pretty tough. It has been very, very, very difficult for I think the overwhelming majority of Victorians, and of recent times we have seen a partial opening up of our state. We have seen retail, we have seen—
Ms Crozier: Smashed.
Mr FINN: Well, retail was smashed. It was indeed. But we have seen the surviving retail sector start to reopen. We have seen some of the sporting clubs and some of the gymnasiums open up. We have seen some of the hotels and some of the hospitality areas start to open up as well. But there is one area in our society, one sector of our society, that has not had the benefit of the sort of relaxation of restrictions that so many others have had.
Last week I met with a delegation of Christian pastors and ministers from the western suburbs of Melbourne. They expressed their very deep concern to me that they were being discriminated against for whatever reason. They were not getting a fair go because they were not allowed to meet in congregations. The churches were not allowed to resume even if socially distanced and under control in that regard. They are not allowed to expand as many other sectors of the community have done. And of course it is not just a question of discrimination against churches; it is discrimination against those using synagogues, using temples and of course using mosques. It is something that does cause me very great concern. Any thought that government would be discriminating against any religion is one thing, but for a government to be discriminating against all religion is pretty outrageous. Some might say that is even handed, but I think it is pretty disgraceful, actually. So what I am asking the Premier to do is to allow religious freedom again in Victoria. What I am asking the Premier to do is to allow folk to gather in churches, in synagogues, in temples and in mosques, keeping the rules of the chief health officer but at the same time able to worship, able to continue their religious practices, so that this apparent discrimination will end as soon as possible.
Latrobe Valley drug rehabilitation facility
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (20:01): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Mental Health in the other place, and it relates to the proposed Latrobe Valley rehabilitation centre. The action I seek from the minister is for him to provide the Central Gippsland community with comprehensive details about when this drug rehabilitation facility will actually open and be ready to support clients, with a time line and designated milestones. Gippsland families have suffered through the scourge of drug addiction and been forced to wait for these drug rehabilitation services due to ongoing delays—but wait, there is more—from the Labor government. The Andrews government promised in the budget of 2017–18 to provide funding for a new youth drug rehabilitation service but has broken its promise, and three and a half years down the track the Latrobe Valley rehab is still yet to be started. We know across our state unfortunately ice and other drugs are a blight on our community, and Gippslanders certainly need adequate rehab builds in order for clients to come in and families to come in to break that real addiction cycle.
The community welcomed this back in the day when it was announced. In March 2019, a year and a half ago, a local Labor upper house member announced the site, and the following September an operator was announced as well, yet still no work is done. Families are struggling and they need support. I know they do—they come into my office. There are representations across the board where they just need adequate support so they do not have to travel out of the area. Extraordinarily, though, since this budget was announced three years ago not one sod has been turned on the site at Traralgon—not a sod. Indeed in 2018–19 the budget was supposed to be for a 30-bed facility, and then it was watered down to a 20-bed for 16- to 21-year-olds. By contrast, the Hope Restart Centre in Bairnsdale was funded in 2018. It is a tremendous centre supported by the community but also private enterprise. It is now open and offering support to clients and families in our area. It shows the Andrews government is heavy on bureaucracy but light on delivering for people in need. My constituents are desperately in need of this facility in reality, not in thin air.
Grampians rock climbing
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (20:04): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the Greater Gariwerd Landscape: Draft Management Plan released yesterday. The action I seek from the minister is to intervene in this broken relationship between Parks Victoria and the climbing community to redress the balance, counter the presumption of guilt and achieve coexistence in this epicentre of Australian rock climbing. The plan covers the Grampians National Park, including routes climbed for many decades which are of national and even international significance. It is no surprise that climbing and bouldering groups have reacted with horror and a deep sense of unfairness at Parks Victoria’s attitude, displayed throughout the document, and in the management plan it advocates. Sadly, this simply reflects the approach of Parks in recent years.
The ban on 66 existing areas will close permanently 2300 of the best routes in the area. Climbers believe it will effectively wipe out this epicentre of Australian rock climbing. It will hugely discourage vital visitors—regional, national and international visitors—and drastically impact local economies. To use the park at all climbers will now need a permit. It is yet more bureaucratic creep, controlling the public, costing more in administration and adding no net benefit, save job creation in the administration.
This whole approach is wrong. Rock climbers are mindful of the environment and cultural sensitivity and have made these climbs for decades without damage or disrespect. To presume their guilt and to collectively punish them is just wrong. This is a national park; it should not be locked up. It should be open to all Victorians. Coexistence should be the absolute aim of our national parks. Without this pervasive and perverse anti-climber attitude, Parks Victoria might actually see that far more could be done to safeguard the environment and culturally sensitive areas by managing tourists better and by dealing with the explosion of feral animals throughout the park. To go after climbers may create headlines and the appearance of reducing damage, but in reality it will do very little to address these bigger problems.
Their own projects appear exempt from such considerations. The 160-kilometre Grampians Peaks Trail, for example, has been quarrying in the park, with the bulldozing of paths through 90 kilometres of virgin country and the alleged disruption of culturally significant sites, all at a cost of $33 million. And will the visitors it brings be better stewards of the country than the climbers? Moreover, this same prejudice may soon threaten other climbing areas, including Mount Arapiles, to the great detriment of the community of Natimuk, which has been substantially supported— (Time expired)
Department of Health and Human Services
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (20:07): My adjournment matter this evening is for the attention of the Premier, and it relates to the Department of Health and Human Services after the very sudden resignation today of the department’s secretary, Kym Peake, who is obviously taking the fall for the bungled, failed and shocking decisions in hotel quarantine. Along with the former minister, she seems to be bailing out of this government and its administration and the failures of that department. The department is too big, and I am urging the Premier to take up the Liberal and Nationals plan in Back to Work and Back in Business to separate the department. The department of health has got a very significant job to do, as we have seen throughout the year with the COVID pandemic, and it needs to be focusing on the health of all Victorians. The department of human services equally has a very significant role to play and a very important one in the protection and management of services for some of the most vulnerable, whether that is child protection, family services, family violence, mental health, alcohol and drug services—these are very important areas—as well as housing. There are so many areas in the department of human services as well as the department of health, but the areas need to be separated. We have seen that the department has been too big and too unwieldy, and we have seen the absolute chaos and dysfunction that has occurred throughout the COVID crisis.
I am calling on the Premier to take up the lead from the Liberals and The Nationals and separate the Department of Health and Human Services to make two separate departments: the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services. It would be far better for all Victorians if that were the case, and I urge the Premier to follow the lead of the Liberals and Nationals and take up that initiative.
Victims of crime
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (20:09): I raise a matter for the attention of the Attorney-General. This has been a very stressful week for victims of crime, particularly the families of deceased sexual assault victims. When you look at the debate that the Parliament had this week it can really be boiled down to the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that of the Attorney-General versus the perspective that has been articulated by the Australia’s Right to Know coalition, which I note includes the union—the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance—and the ABC, SBS, Channel 9, the Guardian, Newscorp, the West Australian et cetera. All have a different view on the rights of families of deceased sexual assault victims to continue to speak about their deceased loved ones.
We had the decision of Judge McInerney in the County Court, and through the committee stage here and in comments from the Attorney in the other place those comments were basically dismissed despite the comments being on the question, on the point of law, on the actual interpretation of the relevant words in the relevant section. The comments of Judge McInerney were dismissed because they did not form part of the judgement. Now, in the absence of any other judicial comment, I think that is an error. But be that as it may, that is the position we are at, and the government has now got to embark on a consultation.
Mr Davis: Belated.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Belated consultation. But as well as embarking on consultation, I think the Attorney-General should do something else. She should ask her secretary to get separate, independent, expert advice about whether the Director of Public Prosecutions’s interpretation is accurate or whether the view of the Right to Know coalition, which includes the entities I mentioned before, is more accurate. I note in their correspondence to me of 2 November the coalition said:
The Act does not expressly apply to the deceased, nor is there anything about the Act which inherently lends itself to the interpretation that it was intended to apply to dead people. The Act sets specified limits on what can be reported from certain Victorian judicial proceedings which may, or may not, concern a deceased person.
It goes on to talk about the rules of statutory interpretation. Again, the Director of Public Prosecutions rejects those positions. I think the Attorney-General should seek some further advice to provide some clarity to this place when we consider future legislation and, when that advice is available, release it.
Casey planning
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (20:12): I want to raise a matter for the Premier. It follows an article written by Royce Millar today at 5.21: ‘Daniel Andrews “waxed lyrical” about Woodman’s campaign donations to Labor’:
Secret phone taps have further embroiled Daniel Andrews in the Casey land scandal, with veteran lobbyist Phil Staindl claiming the Premier “waxed lyrical” about donations from allegedly corrupt developer John Woodman—
I would say ‘corrupt developer’, but leaving that aside—
to Labor’s 2018 election campaign.
In the covert recordings played at anti-corruption public hearings on Thursday, Mr Staindl also claimed Mr Andrews told him the government had “no choice” but to shelve the controversial land rezoning at the heart of the scandal because The Sunday Age had published revelations …
Counsel assisting the inquiry, Michael Tovey, QC, said that political donations had created a sense of obligation to Mr Woodman at the highest levels of government. This gave rise to “a need to apologise” for not approving the land deal.
This goes on:
One telephone intercept played at the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission inquiry … revealed Staindl reporting to his client, Mr Woodman, a conversation with Mr Andrews at a fundraising dinner at a city restaurant known as Kirk’s in late February 2019. Labor had won the state election three months earlier.
“I just mentioned you and the publicity in TheSunday Age spread two weeks running and [Mr Andrews] said … ‘Royce [Millar] was a right arsehole’ or something,” Mr Staindl told Mr Woodman.
Mr Staindl recalled Mr Andrews responding: “We’d had no choice but to … [shelve the rezoning] once Royce was working on that story …
This is very serious, President, and very serious, Minister. You have got the highest official in the state embroiled in a controversy of this type.
Twice in different recordings, Mr Staindl and Mr Woodman called Mr Andrews “the boss”.
The … inquiry is probing Mr Woodman’s manipulation of the planning system …
This is very, very serious indeed, that they would buy support for a developer’s projects as a form of corruption. This is a very serious matter, and I think the Premier needs to get himself down to IBAC. There is a cloud hanging over his head—a corruption cloud. I think he is corrupt, but I think he needs to get down there and explain whether he is or not. He needs to give honest, fearless, truthful evidence under oath to IBAC. He cannot any longer leave this cloud hanging over his and his government’s heads. Ministers are involved, senior officials. It is shocking, it is corrupt, it is just beyond belief. He needs to get down there and clear it up immediately.
Following matters incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 15 September:
Serious sex offenders
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria)
My matter is for the Minister for Corrections. It was one I previously directed to the Attorney-General but she has indicated it should go to Minister Hutchins instead.
It’s about a serious sex offender, on the sex offenders register, named Christopher William Empey.
He spent 12 years in prison for a rape in 2002 so violent that it included him stomping on the victim’s head and left her so grievously injured that she even had to learn how to walk and write again.
That is all disturbing enough.
However, I also want to turn to some seemingly unfathomable events in late 2018 and early 2019 in Empey’s case.
According to news reports, he chose on 23 November 2018 to cut off the GPS ankle bracelet that was being used by authorities as part of several monitoring conditions on him.
He then eluded capture for more than six weeks, before he was finally arrested in the Snowy Mountains and extradited back to Victoria. At an initial court hearing on 11 January 2019, he faced charges of damaging the bracelet and failing to comply with his monitoring orders.
It’s from here that things become really murky.
From my investigations of what subsequently occurred, Empey was meant to return to court three months later. However, by that time, all the charges were seemingly withdrawn. So, he appears not to have been convicted of any crime at all, even on the one count remaining by April of intentionally damaging property.
There are obviously many aspects of this that are deeply troubling.
Not the least of these is why multiple charges were not laid and pursued in such circumstances.
It also begs the question of what sort of message the striking out of every possible charge against Empey will have sent to other subjects of monitoring orders, as well as the kind of precedent it establishes for future cases.
Even more worryingly, it also raises the possibility that this case may, in fact, have followed precedents from similar cases before it that have also resulted in no charges or convictions.
Given all of what I have recounted about these events surrounding Empey, the action I seek is an explanation of two interrelated issues.
These are whether it is correct there were no legal repercussions for Empey from breaching his monitoring conditions as a serious sex offender and, if so, whether the government and/or its agencies have either appealed against this outcome or taken any other action to ensure such apparently unbelievable outcomes don’t transpire again.
Family violence
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria)
My adjournment is to the minister representing the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, the Honourable Ingrid Stitt.
The rate of family violence in Greater Geelong has risen 12 per cent in three months compared to the same period last year, according to new Crime Statistics Agency data.
This data also shows that in the June quarter, family violence incidents rose by 14.7 per cent.
More family violence safety notices and interim intervention orders were also issued in this time.
This data, which covers the time period of the first coronavirus lockdown period, found that across Victoria, not just in Greater Geelong, emergency room presentations for minors with family violence related injuries increased by 35.5 per cent.
A key finding in these statistics was also that there was an increase in the number of victim-survivors or clients aged 55 or older who accessed family violence services during the second quarter of 2020.
The action that I seek is for the minister to outline what increase in family violence resourcing or funding has been allocated by the government for the Greater Geelong region as a result of these increasing numbers mentioned.
Responses
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (20:15): There were 11 adjournment matters this evening: Mr Gepp to the Minister for Small Business; Ms Lovell to the Minister for Community Sport; Ms Watt to the Minister for Training and Skills; Mr Ondarchie to the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers; Dr Cumming to the Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy; Mr Finn to the Premier; Ms Bath to the Minister for Mental Health; Mrs McArthur to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change; Ms Crozier to the Premier; Mr O’Donohue to the Attorney-General; and Mr Davis to the Premier. I also have eight responses to adjournment matters.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (20:15): President, at this very late stage I draw your attention to the standing orders regarding responses to adjournments, and I advise the house that, as I raised last sitting week, adjournment 752 asked by me to the Minister for Mental Health on 4 August 2020 is now 100 days overdue. My question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation asked on 14 October is now 29 days overdue.
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (20:16): I can indicate that I do have in those eight responses to adjournment matters one to Mr Ondarchie from 14 October 2020, so that may resolve one of those issues. I will undertake to follow up in relation to the late adjournment matter for the Minister for Mental Health.
The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.
House adjourned 8.17 pm until Tuesday, 24 November.
Written adjournment responses
Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.
Thursday, 12 November 2020
Country Fire Authority Tarneit station
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (17 October 2019)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
The Tarneit Fire Station became operational on 12 November 2019.
The delay in commissioning the new Tarneit Fire station was primarily due to major road upgrades including the road in front of the fire station.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (23 April 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
The Victorian Government reports pandemic related data in an open and transparent matter in accordance with the AHPPC and National Cabinet requirements. In many respects it exceeds these requirements.
As of 7 May, we now report the active cases by local government areas on the public website. Confirmed cases are also reported by local government areas. All data reported by local government areas is based on the patient residence at the time of testing, which may not correspond to where any exposure associated with the case has occurred or where the patient actual resides.
Currently the data is reported publicly after the daily media release—for a variety of reasons media releases and subsequently updating the data publicly available are delayed periodically. The Department works hard to ensure that the data publicly reported reflects the most accurate surveillance data available for that day and is released in as timely a manner as permitted to ensure that is the case.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (2 June 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
International, national and local modelling and experience is that reducing human to human interaction is the most effective means of decreasing viral spread. All decisions which have increased restrictions have been based on epidemiological evidence. Decision making pertaining to Stage 3 and 4 restrictions now in place in Regional Victoria and Metropolitan Melbourne respectively have been informed by such evidence.
Modelling information coupled with the local evidence of outbreaks related to household transmission, workplace to household transmission, transmission within aged care facilities, increasing regional cases of transmission an increased evidence of cases of unknown transmission has clearly indicated the need for strong measures to be put in place in Victoria.
The Victorian Government has released modelling as to provide greater understanding of the spread of coronavirus in Victoria which can be found on the Department of Health and Human Services website. Modelling from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) is an additional source of information considered by the department to help inform our response to COVID-19. Modelling as of 16 April 2020 is publicly available and can be found on the Australian Government Department of Health Website.
Albury Wodonga Health
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (3 June 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
The Department of Health and Human Services and the NSW Ministry of Health are working closely to finalise the new Inter-Governmental Agreement.
The Department of Health and Human Services is awaiting further response from the NSW Ministry of Health regarding the final funding clauses in the agreement.
When this response is received, the Department of Health and Human Services will progress negotiations accordingly.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (4 June 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
I acknowledge that pathology testing processes in Victoria experienced some capacity constraints at times during the pandemic.
Average time taken for people to receive their results has reduced from nearly two days to now less than one over this time.
In recognition that not all workers have access to paid sick leave or carers leave, the Victorian Government has introduced a $450 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Test Isolation payment that provides financial support whilst people are self-isolating awaiting test results.
This payment works in conjunction with the Commonwealth Government’s Coronavirus (COVID-19) worker support payment. The worker support payment is a one-off $1,500 payment for Victorian workers who, as of 20 June, have been instructed to self-isolate or quarantine at home because they are either diagnosed with coronavirus (COVID-19) or are a close contact of a confirmed case.
Cardinal George Pell
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (18 June 2020)
Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General):
I note the concerns about the charging, prosecution and conviction of Cardinal George Pell. As the courts, Victoria Police and the Office of Public Prosecutions operate independently of government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific decisions made regarding the Pell case. However, I would like to respond to the broader concerns you have raised about the operation of the Victorian justice system.
I agree that the integrity of the justice system is of the utmost importance. It is also critical that the public has confidence in the fair and effective functioning of the Victorian justice system.
I do not agree that an unsuccessful prosecution or the fact that a decision is overturned on appeal is indicative of a failure of the justice system. Indeed, the proper testing of evidence in criminal proceedings and the correction of decisions on appeal are fundamental features of a justice system that is operating effectively to deliver fair, transparent and sound outcomes. The appeals process is a fundamental component of the justice system, allowing courts to correct decisions and providing a critical safeguard against miscarriages of justice. The judicial process also provides a transparent, public forum within which to examine certain actions and decisions of those involved in the criminal justice process, including police, prosecutors and (in the case of appeals) judicial officers.
I am unable to comment on the conduct of the ABC or other media in relation to this case, as the reporting of certain media organisations and journalists on the case involving Mr Pell is currently the subject of legal proceedings. In general, however, the government is committed to the principle of open justice and considers that the media has an important role in communicating fair and accurate reports of court proceedings to the public.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (18 August 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
DHHS has taken a number of urgent measures to expedite contact tracing and outbreak management activities.
Since March 2020, technological solutions have been progressively implemented to support case contact and outbreak management workload, operations and intelligence.
These solutions now see the Victorian Contact Tracing system meeting all National Cabinet Performance Benchmarks.
Retirement housing
In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (14 October 2020)
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):
The Victorian Government values the input of older Victorians into the Review of the Retirement Villages Act 1986 (the Review).
Consistent with other major reform processes, the Review is stakeholder driven. An Issues Paper was released from 25 October to 6 December 2019 for public consultation, seeking feedback on key questions for the retirement village sector. Three community forums were also held in November 2019 in Shepparton, Geelong and Melbourne CBD, providing stakeholders, including residents, with a further opportunity to provide feedback on the issues that matter to them.
I am pleased to advise that almost 85 per cent of the 151 submissions received in response to the Issues Paper were from retirement village residents and related groups. These submissions can be found on the Engage Victoria website at: https://engage.vic.gov.au/retirementvillagesact, along with a summary of the feedback from the community forums.
The next major milestone for the Review will be the release of an Options Paper for public consultation by the end of 2020. Development of the Options Paper will be informed by stakeholder submissions to the Issues Paper and discussions at the community forums. Input from members of the Stakeholder Reference Group for the Review, which includes peak bodies for residents and seniors, will also be critical to identify potential reform options.
The government is prioritising meaningful stakeholder engagement to ensure a successful outcome for the Review. The Victorian Government looks forward to receiving the views of retirement village residents, their families and other interested stakeholders in response to the Options Paper, including potential reforms to external dispute resolution processes. This feedback will inform government decision making on a preferred reform approach in 2021.
It is still anticipated that a Bill will be introduced for debate during the current term of Parliament.
Answers to constituency questions
Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.
31 October to 12 November 2020
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (5 March 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question of 5 March 2020 about the lease for the reconstructed Middle Park station building.
Small Business Victoria within the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions has followed this matter up with the Department of Transport.
This remains a commercial matter between the two parties. The lessee leased the property from Yarra Trams to run a café at Middle Park tram station. I understand that the parties undertook mediation on 31 January 2020, and that Yarra Trams notified the Anstees’ legal representative on 24 August 2020 regarding the termination of their lease.
Western Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (3 June 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question regarding Victorian Government relief and support measures for commercial tenancies in the Western Metropolitan Region.
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring our sole traders, micro-businesses and SMEs impacted by ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
The Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme provides a valuable framework to help small to medium commercial tenants and landlords negotiate rent relief. The Victorian Government has extended the scheme to 31 December 2020 to provide businesses with certainty at this time. Both tenants and landlords are able to access free advice and mediation through the Victorian Small Business Commission to help them reach agreements on their leases—businesses can access support by emailing enquiries@vsbc.vic.gov.au.
The Business Recovery and Resilience Mentoring program and access to off-the-shelf digital products are helping businesses adapt their operations to the online environment and prepare them for new market conditions. We have also invested $26 million in the Wellbeing and Mental Health Support for Victorian Business program to help Victorians deal with the challenges of running a business through the crisis.
Small Business Victoria is continuing to offer support to businesses through capability building workshops, the virtual Small Business Bus and mentoring program that are available free of charge. The Business Victoria digital channels provide current COVID-19 business information including the Business Victoria Update free newsletter for businesses to stay informed of new support, grant applications and announcements as they are released.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (4 June 2020)
Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General):
Thank you, Ms Crozier, for your question. I am saddened to hear that your constituents have recently lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I would suggest that your constituent contact Fines Victoria on (03) 9200 8222 to discuss the options relating to his outstanding fine.
It would appear that the notice received by your constituent is a statutory notice known as a Court Fine Collection Statement, issued in relation to a fine ordered by a court. Fines such as these make up a small fraction of the total number of fines dealt with by Fines Victoria.
Fines Reform legislation, which took effect on 31 December 2017, provided Fines Victoria with the ability to collect and manage fines imposed and then referred by courts. These fines were previously collected and managed by courts. These changes provide fine recipients with additional options to pay court fines and allow the consolidation of court fines and other types of fines such as parking fines into a single payment arrangement to help fine recipients manage and resolve their fine debt.
As noted in the letter received by your constituent, Fines Victoria IT system functionality led to a delay in the issue of Court Fine Collection Statements. Functionality to issue these statements was successfully deployed in December 2019. Since that time, Fines Victoria has been progressively issuing statements in relation to fines referred by the courts when Fines Reform legislation took effect, as well as fines referred since then. The release of statements is occurring in a staged manner, in consultation with the courts, to manage any increase in demand caused by the issue of the statements.
It is important to note that the delay in issuing Court Fines Collection Statements has not prevented persons who have been fined by a court from paying those fines, as payment could be made at the court on the day the fine was made, at any Justice Service Centre across the state, or with Fines Victoria.
Fines Victoria continues to update the fines system to improve its efficiency and the experience of fine recipients, particularly vulnerable Victorians.
South Eastern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (4 August 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
Greater Melbourne, including the constituent’s ballet school were under Stage 4 COVID-19 settings at the time the question was asked. Under Stage 4, attendance at ballet school is not a permitted reason for a person to leave their premises under the Stay at Home Directions(Restricted Areas) (No 11).
A ballet school offering classes to the community is likely to be considered a physical recreational facility. Under Stage 4 restrictions, physical recreational facilities are able to operate only for the exclusive use of training of professional and high-performance sports persons only. Similarly, under Stage 3 restrictions, which applied in Melbourne prior to 6 PM Sunday 2 August, indoor physical recreational facilities were only permitted to operate for the exclusive use of a single professional sporting team at any one time for training purposes.
In some instances, for example, if a ballet school is teaching VCE dance, it may be considered an educational facility, and will be subject to restrictions applicable to those facilities. However, it is important to note that restrictions also apply regarding when a person can leave home to obtain educational services.
I recognise the cultural significance of dance to Victoria and the impact these restrictions are having on Victoria’s dance community. The restrictions have been carefully considered and are based on expert advice from Victoria’s Chief Health Officer.
Eastern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (1 September 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your questions regarding the administration of the Business Support Fund.
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring our sole traders, micro-businesses and SMEs impacted by ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
The Business Support Fund is supporting Victorian businesses impacted by the restrictions. The first round of the program had almost 95,000 applications with over 77,000 businesses receiving the grant.
The second round, the Business Support Fund expansion program, received over 124,000 applications and over 97,000 business have received the grant to date.
A third round of the program is currently open and has to date received over 68,000 applications and 31,000 businesses have been approved. Applications for this program are still currently under assessment.
While most applications are assessed and processed within the expected timeframes, others may take longer if additional checks to confirm eligibility are required.
The Department has a robust process for responding to complaints about its business support programs. The process involves specialised teams who review every complaint and contact every complainant to discuss their issue. I have full confidence in the process in place to deal with and respond to complaints.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15 September 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
From 28 September 2020, restrictions on non-urgent dental services in Melbourne were eased, noting that there are now no restrictions on non-urgent care in regional Victoria.
All Victorians have had access to emergency and urgent dental care throughout the pandemic, including at the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne and many community-based dental services across the state.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (15 September 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question regarding restrictions for landscape designers. I understand the unprecedented impact the pandemic is having on many small businesses in Victoria.
The Victorian Government’s reopening plans are based on health advice to slow the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19) across the state. Industry representatives, peak bodies and businesses offer feedback and recommendations on the reopening plans through industry roundtables and direct consultations. The Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, including Small Business Victoria meets regularly with industry associations to hear their concerns on behalf of members.
On 6 September 2020, the Premier announced the COVID-19 roadmap to reopening to provide certainty and clarity to the community and businesses. Under the roadmap, landscaping and gardening services in metropolitan Melbourne have been able to operate since 28 September 2020, provided that the business had an ABN, and the work is conducted exclusively by an individual worker and completely contact free. From 11.59pm on 18 October 2020 gardening and landscaping workers have been permitted to safely work outside in groups of up to five.
On 26 October 2020, the Premier announced further easing of restrictions as metropolitan Melbourne progressed to the Third Step for reopening. Effective from 11:59pm on 27 October 2020, landscape designers have been able to operate with a COVIDSafe Plan.
The complete list of industry specific requirements is available on the Victorian Government website: vic.gov.au/industry-restrictions-roadmap-metro-melbourne.
Businesses are encouraged to contact the Business Victoria hotline on 13 22 15 for information on restrictions and support to help plan and respond to coronavirus (COVID-19).
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16 September 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
Between November 2017 and this year, the Victorian Government has invested $131.5 million to ensure more palliative care can be provided in the community. This investment has meant the sector has been well-placed to meet increased demand during the pandemic. In May 2020 a $2.4 million COVID-19 grant was also provided to community palliative care for these services to provide more care and meet the costs of equipment, medications and other support services throughout the pandemic.
Eastern Victoria Region
In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (16 September 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
I thank the Member for his question.
As you are aware, a State of Emergency was declared on Monday, 16 March 2020. Since this declaration, the Licensing and Regulation Division of Victoria Police (LRD) has made a conscious effort to ensure minimal disruptions within the firearms industry and has continued to minimise the impact on the provision of licencing and regulatory services. I am advised that for the duration of the pandemic (since mid-March), the LRD has received close to 4,800 new firearm licence applications and over 17,000 renewal firearm licence applications. The LRD has processed over 4,400 of these new applications and 14,700 renewals, respectively. During the same period, the LRD has processed over 27,800 firearm Permits to Acquire and recorded over 108,000 firearm dealer transactions.
On 31 March 2020, the LRD announced the temporary ban on firearm and ammunition transactions and sales to non-professional shooters. The LRD anticipated there would be a number of enquiries due to this announcement and quickly provided supporting Frequently Asked Questions documentation to licence holders. During this time, the LRD also responded to in excess of a thousand email enquiries to provide assistance and clarification to affected licence holders. Additionally, the LRD:
• provided licence holders with the option to have their Permit to Acquire applications refunded if they had already received and paid for it, and if it was to expire during the time of the variation
• allowed licence holders and Licensed Firearm Dealers to arrange layby of firearms until the variation was repealed
• allowed Licenced Firearm Dealers to honour Permits to Acquire if they were received and paid for before 31 March 2020
• allowed Licences Firearm Dealers to continue acquiring firearms in accordance with the conditions of their licence
• continued to process Permits to Acquire for licence holders who held a licence for occupational purposes.
Moreover, the LRD prioritised the processing of all Permit to Acquire applications that were received prior to the variation taking effect. This meant licence holders would not need to reapply for their Permit to Acquire, which avoided additional application fees.
It was also during the State of Emergency that the LRD made the decision to allow:
• All current provisional licences to be extended from six months to 12 months. This allowed licence holders more time to participate in shooting activities.
• All licence holders to submit their renewal applications via email. Given the delays with standard mail, this option allowed licence holders to have their applications processed more efficiently.
• Licence holders additional time to attend an approved photo point to satisfy their renewal application with no adverse action taken against their licence.
On 9 July 2020, Victoria entered Stage 3 ‘Stay at Home’ restrictions. As a result, licence holders were not able to attend and participate at shooting clubs during this time without breaching restrictions. Therefore, the LRD made the decision to reduce the total number of shoots/matches required to hold a handgun licence by 50 per cent for the remainder of the 2020 calendar year. At the beginning of August, metropolitan Melbourne entered Stage 4 restrictions and Regional Victoria remained in Stage 3 restrictions. The LRD recognised it would not be feasible for licence holders to meet the revised number of shoots/matches required to hold a handgun licence and therefore announced that all handgun participation requirements would be waived for the duration of the 2020 calendar year, overriding the previous variation.
The refund of firearm licence fees is not currently being contemplated by Victoria Police or the government. You may wish to note, however, that LRD does have a current refund policy and provides refunds for exceptional circumstances, including fee payment error by applicants, the death of a licence holder or permanent relocation of a licence holder to another jurisdiction.
I acknowledge the continued impact COVID-19 is having on the ability of firearms licensees to participate in recreational hunting and sporting events, and wish to assure you that the LRD and the government are continuing to assess the effect that the pandemic situation is having on firearms licensees with a view to ensuring fairness and the least amount of disruption possible. I thank you and all firearms licensees for demonstrating continued resilience during this difficult period.
Northern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (13 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
The matter you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Community Sport.
Northern Victoria Region
In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (13 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
Thank you for your question regarding support for the hospitality industry in Northern Victoria.
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that businesses impacted by restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
The Victorian Government understands that many hospitality businesses across the State have been particularly impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. In recognition of this the Victorian Government has dedicated grant programs for the hospitality industry including:
• the $251 million Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund to help bars, restaurants, pubs, clubs, hotels and reception centres that serve food and alcohol on licensed premises to survive,
• the $58 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package to help businesses adapt their operations to outdoor dining;
• the $30 million Hospitality Business Grant Program for the hardest hit businesses in the food hospitality industry; and
• the Night-time Economy Business Support Initiative for grouped hospitality businesses operating licensed venues and experiencing rental hardship that are not within the scope of the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme
Employing hospitality businesses may also be eligible for grants under the Business Support Fund. Through the third round of the Business Support Fund, eligible businesses that must stay closed or operate under restrictions until COVID Normal can apply for grants of $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000, depending on the business’ annual payroll.
More than 4,000 grants have been paid to hospitality businesses in northern Victoria under the Business Support Fund rounds since March 2020. Applications for the third round of the Business Support Fund are still open on the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.
The grants complement broader efforts by the Victorian Government to support hospitality businesses, including liquor licence fee refunds and waivers, land tax relief for landlords and the payroll tax refund.
Northern Victoria Region
In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question. This matter falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Agriculture.
The Member may wish to direct his question to the Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Jaclyn Symes MLC.
Eastern Victoria Region
In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (13 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question regarding support for Victorian businesses through the Business Support Fund. I acknowledge the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on many small and medium businesses around Victoria.
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring small businesses impacted by ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal through cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
To date, the Victorian Government has funded $2.55 billion for three rounds of the Business Support Fund which has supported more than 125,000 businesses.
As with all grant programs, there are eligibility criteria that businesses must meet in order to receive the grant payments. This allows for the Victorian Government to target the funds to where they are most needed. The Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) assists applicants through the application process with clear guidelines and Frequently Asked Questions that are available in up to 16 languages on the Business Victoria website, as well as translators available through the Business Victoria hotline. Many successful Business Support Fund applicants receive their grants within the expected timeframe.
DJPR is working with the Victorian Ombudsman to ensure the integrity of the programs and to reassess applications where appropriate. DJPR is working through the issues raised by the Ombudsman to ensure as many Victorians as possible are supported through this difficult time.
The Victorian Government is assisting our small business sector through a range of initiatives including the $251 million Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund, the $58 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package Business Grants, Upskill My Business program, Business Recovery and Resilience Mentoring Program.
More information on the Victorian Government’s business support measures can be found at the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au or by calling the Business Victoria hotline, 13 22 15.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
The Victorian Government supported small and medium-sized businesses impacted by the COVID-19 stay at home restrictions through three rounds of the Business Support Fund. This included:
• $10,000 payments to businesses under the first round of the program, which ran from March to June 2020, and
• the second round of the program, which ran from June to September 2020, and provided grants of $10,000 to businesses in metro Melbourne and Mitchell Shire; and grants of $5,000 to businesses in regional local government.
The current and third round of the Business Support Fund (BSF3) is now open and provides support to small and medium-sized businesses impacted by the COVID-19 stay at home restrictions. BSF3 is available to eligible businesses registered as operating in an industry sector that is impacted by extended restrictions, as described in Victoria’s Roadmap for reopening, to help them to remain solvent and survive. Eligible sectors are those that are identified in the Roadmap for reopening as Restricted, Heavily Restricted or Closed and not easing industry restriction levels between the First Step and Second Step.
Pharmacies were eligible for funding through the first two rounds of the Business Support Fund. The BSF3 fund is targeted specifically at businesses that are subject to restrictions that did not ease between the First and Second Step of the Roadmap. While some pharmacies, along with many other industries, have suffered a decline in customer demand, they remained open and have been able to trade throughout the lockdown period.
The Victorian Government has a range of other programs for businesses seeking support during these challenging times. Business Victoria’s COVID-19 business support page includes practical resources to support businesses, such as:
• the Upskill My Business program, which provides free online courses, live and on-demand events and a range of business resources to help businesses prepare for a strong recovery; and
• Small Business Digital Adaptation program to assist sole traders and small businesses in building their digital capability through off-the-shelf digital programs.
In addition to direct business support, the Victorian Government is also providing $1.8 billion in tax and cashflow support including deferring of payroll tax for businesses with payrolls up to $10 million for the full 2020–21 financial year.
Northern Victoria Region
In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
I recognise how challenging coronavirus restrictions have been for all Victorians. The decisions the Victorian Government has taken in response to the pandemic have been driven by the advice of our public health experts to limit movement of people and drive the spread of coronavirus down. The evidence shows that our strategy is working.
We have announced a wide range of measures to support businesses across Victoria that are impacted by coronavirus restrictions. Our $3 billion Business Resilience Package—which takes the Government’s total business support to over $6 billion—is delivering cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support to Victorian businesses to help them survive and retain their employees. The package includes over $1.1 billion to support small- and medium-sized businesses that are most affected by coronavirus restrictions.
Regional Victoria has progressed to the third step of our roadmap for reopening, allowing many lower risk regional businesses to reopen. On 18 October I announced a further easing of restrictions for regional businesses, including increasing patron caps for cafés and restaurants, opening pools for under eighteens and swimming lessons, and a provisional reopening of licenced tourism services.
As we move along our roadmap to reopening, we must continue to take safe, steady and sustainable steps to protect the health and safety of all Victorians. Restrictions are constantly being assessed, including for businesses in Victoria’s border towns, to allow reopening as soon as it is safe to do so.
As we move towards COVID Normal, the Victorian Government will continue supporting businesses and communities get back on their feet.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)
Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):
I am informed that:
The Respiratory Protection Program encompasses fit testing, but also brings together a range of elements to ensure a healthcare worker’s risk of exposure to respiratory hazards is kept to a minimum.
All metropolitan and major regional health services have a Respiratory Protection Program in place. There are a number of sub-regional and small rural health services that are working to finalise their RPP arrangements with the support of the department.
More than 3,200 healthcare workers have been fit tested with more tested each day. As at 5 November, over 3,300 healthcare workers have been fit tested across six priority health services.
Fit testing will be an ongoing and regular process conducted by Victorian health services to ensure healthcare workers are wearing appropriate respiratory equipment.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (16 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
The Business Support Fund was launched on 30 March 2020 and provided support to eligible employing businesses subject to closure or highly impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) shutdown restrictions announced by the Victorian Government in March 2020. Stream 1 of the program included a requirement for businesses to be operating within an eligible industry sector that was identified as being directly impacted by COVID-19 shutdown restrictions. Businesses had the opportunity to update their ANZSIC industry code to reflect their primary business activity in cases where their registered industry code was not up to date. If, after doing so, these businesses were assessed as operating in an eligible industry classification and they met all other criteria, they received a grant from the program.
Following the launch of the Business Support Fund Stream 1, and in recognition of the need for survival funding for a broader range of businesses across Victoria, the program was expanded on 1 May 2020. Stream 2 of the program supported businesses participating in the Commonwealth’s JobKeeper Payment scheme and removed the requirement to operate within a specific sector. More than 20,000 businesses that had applied for Stream 1 of the Business Support Fund but were not eligible due to their industry sector, were emailed and invited to apply for the second stream.
The Business Support Fund—Expansion Program (the second round of the program) was announced on 13 July 2020. The program provided $10,000 grants to employing businesses in metropolitan Melbourne and the Mitchell Shire and $5,000 grants to employing businesses in regional Victoria, to reflect the extended period of Stage 3 and 4 restrictions that impacted these locations.
Applications for the third round of the Business Support Fund program opened on 18 September 2020. This program is currently open and accepting applications. The program is available to eligible businesses registered as operating in an industry sector that is impacted by extended restrictions, as described in Victoria’s Roadmap for reopening, to help them to remain solvent and survive. Eligible sectors are those that are identified in the Roadmap as Restricted, Heavily Restricted or Closed and did not ease industry restriction levels between the First Step and Second Step. The full list of eligible sectors is available on the Business Support Fund webpages on the Business Victoria website (www.business.vic.gov.au). The application form for the program asks applicants to confirm they have checked their ANZSIC industry code on the ABR webpages before they submit their application. If the industry code is incorrect the applicant can update the number prior to submission of their BSF 3 application.
Western Victoria Region
In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
The South West Region of Victoria has a significant number of tracks and trails which provide locals and visitors to the region with opportunities to immerse themselves in nature and cultural experiences along our spectacular coastline forests and in adjacent hinterland.
The Victorian Government is investing in several trails in the south west. I recently announced $4.5 million of funding towards a $6.2 million investment into building the Twelve Apostles Trail, Timboon to Port Campbell which is being delivered by the Corangamite Shire. Work has commenced on the trail; it is expected to be completed in 2021 and will link with the Camperdown to Timboon trail creating a 60km trail experience.
In addition, $350,000 has been committed for a Feasibility Study for Great Ocean Walk (Stage 2)—Skenes Creek to Cumberland River project and $5 million has been committed to the establishment of the Apollo Bay to Skenes Creek Coastal Trail. Both these projects have been funded through the $370 million Geelong City Deal partnership between the Victorian and Commonwealth governments.
The Victorian Government is also establishing an independent statutory authority, the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority, to bring together and manage the coastal Crown land and marine waters along the Great Ocean Road. One of the roles of this authority will be to guide further infrastructure needs and investment on Crown Land along the Great Ocean Road. This will include consideration of connecting existing and creating new trails in the region.
I welcome proposals that align with this work to support the growth of nature-based tourism and encourage Mr Dunn to make contact with Regional Development Victoria.
Eastern Victoria Region
In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
The Victorian Government always welcomes opportunities to discuss how we can support regional jobs and economies, not least in East Gippsland, which has seen the devastating impacts of the 2019–20 fire season. The Minister for Agriculture met with the Committee for Gippsland in June this year and regularly meets with agriculture and regional stakeholders, including about the timber industry.
The Government has also set up Community Recovery Committees across East Gippsland to ensure a community-led approach to all aspects of bushfire recovery planning and delivery. This approach helps keep local voices and knowledge front and centre in decision-making about how best to drive economic recovery.
More broadly, the Victorian Forestry Plan announced in November last year will support Gippsland’s timber industry to transition to a more sustainable footing. The Plan will ensure the industry can continue to thrive well into the future using plantation timber, finding the right balance between the environment, community impacts and workers’ livelihoods.
The Plan maintains wood supply arrangements until mid-2024, then starts a gradual phase-out of native timber harvesting to 2030. This transition will not happen overnight, but taking decisive action enables us to work with industry to ensure that our valued haulage operators—and all workers, businesses and communities—get the support that they need over the next ten years.
The Government is also supporting East Gippsland’s economy through a range of targeted grants and initiatives. One example is the Local Economic Recovery program, which makes funding available for projects that stabilise and stimulate bushfire-affected economies in line with local and regional priorities.
This investment builds on the provision of grants, concessional loans, tax relief and financial advice available to individual businesses and primary producers in the region.
Eastern Victoria Region
In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
The Victorian Government is supporting hospitality businesses across Victoria impacted by COVID-19 restrictions through a range of supports, including grants under the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund.
I am pleased to advise that following a review of the hospitality activities possible under a producer’s licence, I have agreed to update the program to now include producer’s licences as an eligible liquor licence type.
This change aligns with the Victorian Government’s intent to help licensed hospitality venues impacted by the extended restrictions put in place to help slow the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19).
Eligible venues with a producer’s licence will receive an invitation to apply from Business Victoria at the email address that they used to sign up for an eLicence in their Liquor Portal account.
Detailed instructions on how to set up a Liquor Portal and sign up for an eLicence are available on the Business Victoria website.
Northern Victoria Region
In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (27 October 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
I thank the Member for Northern Victoria Region for her question.
The Murray Basin Rail Project (MBRP) is a vital project for Victoria’s farmers and the freight industry and is already delivering better, more efficient freight services.
The Victorian Government has recently released details of the business case review.
The Victorian Government was disappointed to see the MBRP was the only project on Victoria’s infrastructure wish list not funded in the recent Federal Budget. The Commonwealth has had the revised business case since May, and Victoria has been working closely with them to determine the next steps for the project.
The revised business case noted that our freight and passenger rail networks have evolved significantly since the original business case was first developed in 2012.
The review proposes a package of works which requires an additional $244 million toward the project, taking the overall investment in the MBRP to $814 million. The Victorian Government has committed $48.8 million in further funding towards the project and is seeking $195.2 million from the Commonwealth.
After significant industry consultation, the package of shovel ready works will benefit freight operators by enhancing the network, reducing journey times, enabling more freight paths and delivering a more efficient freight task. It will support around 500 local jobs in construction across the project.
Southern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (27 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that small and medium businesses impacted by restrictions, including those in the hospitality industry, have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal operations. This support is flowing to small businesses in the form of cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
The Victorian Government has had ongoing engagement with Victorian businesses since the COVID-19 pandemic hit in early 2020. Industry engagement has included more than 165 industry roundtables, meetings with the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) and Ministerial meetings with industry associations.
Small Business Victoria within DJPR will contact Mr Bagios to invite him and other South Melbourne hoteliers to join the next roundtable for the hospitality sector.
As part of the $7 billion of business support measures, the Victorian Government recently announced the $251 million Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund, with grants of up to $30,000 available to eligible liquor licensees with hospitality venues to meet business costs, including utilities, salaries or rent, advice, marketing or other activities to support the operation of the business.
The Victorian Government also recently announced the third round of the Business Support Fund, providing grants of up to $20,000 to eligible businesses to help them survive and prepare for COVID Normal. Additional grants of $5,000 are also available to eligible hospitality businesses to adapt their operations to outdoor dining and to facilitate COVID Normal operations as part of the $58 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package.
Tax relief measures are providing much needed cash flow at this time and are supplemented by the Government’s waiver of liquor licencing fees for 2020 and 2021. And, eligible hospitality businesses with commercial premises leases can access free mediation support from the Victorian Small Business Commission to reach agreement on rent relief with their landlord under the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme.
More information on all the Victorian Government business support measures can be found on the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.
Western Victoria Region
In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
The Victorian Government takes animal welfare seriously and is committed to working with Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) and the greyhound racing industry to continue to improve greyhound welfare.
GRV has embarked on a significant program of reform of greyhound racing in the past five years with a focus on all aspects of greyhound welfare and integrity including rehoming and track safety.
The loss of a greyhound is distressing for all concerned. Any decision to euthanise a greyhound is made by an on-track veterinarian on humane grounds. GRV introduced the Greyhound Recovery Initiative in December 2016 which provides financial support for treatment of greyhounds seriously injured at a race meeting.
In 2018–19 the number of fatal injuries in Victorian greyhound racing fell by 23 per cent on the previous year. GRV has advised that it will announce a further significant reduction in fatal racing injuries in its 2019–20 Annual Report.
GRV investigates all track deaths and has committed to ensuring that Victorian greyhounds race on the safest possible tracks. Over the past four years, GRV has been working with academics from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) on a data-driven approach to greyhound racing track design. This work has covered all aspects of track design including layout, corner cambers, track surface composition and ensuring supporting infrastructure is designed with a focus on injury prevention.
The findings from this work were used in the redevelopment of the Horsham Greyhound Racing Club track in 2016–17, which recorded the lowest rate of track injuries for any Victorian club in 2017–18.
UTS has recently undertaken design work with GRV to improve track safety outcomes at the Geelong Greyhound Racing Club. GRV is currently reviewing the recommendations of the UTS report.
The Victorian Government will continue to support GRV to develop and deliver evidence-based initiatives to further improve safety in Victorian greyhound racing.
Western Metropolitan Region
In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
Since my announcement of 13 October 2020 of a $250 million package to boost individual learning support in the wake of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, potential tutors across the state have been registering their interest through the Department of Education and Training, including pre-service teachers, casual relief teachers, retired teachers and teachers who are on leave.
We expect that schools will begin engaging tutors throughout November and December by accessing this register, or through their existing employment channels, to commence in schools by Term 1, 2021. This will based on each school’s plan for supporting students in 2021, and how the tutoring program is best structured in their school. Schools will be supported by guidance from the Department about a range of evidence-informed strategies to identify and support those students who have been most impacted by the challenges of remote learning.
Eastern Victoria Region
In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
As at 11.59pm on 8 November 2020, the boundary between regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne is no longer in place and the vehicle check points have ceased to operate.
Victoria Police has worked with all landholders where staging areas were established to support the vehicle check points. Each engagement was facilitated by local police command. Any financial considerations regarding the use of the land for police staging was managed by the relevant local police command.
Northern Victoria Region
In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (29 October 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
I thank the Member for Northern Victoria Region for her question.
The Murray Basin Rail Project (MBRP) is a vital project for Victoria’s farmers and the freight industry and is already delivering better, more efficient freight services.
The Victorian Government has recently released details of the business case review.
The Victorian Government was disappointed to see the MBRP was the only project on Victoria’s infrastructure wish list not funded in the recent Federal Budget. The Commonwealth has had the revised business case since May, and Victoria has been working closely with them to determine the next steps for the project.
The revised business case noted that our freight and passenger rail networks have evolved significantly since the original business case was first developed in 2012.
The review proposes a package of works which requires an additional $244 million toward the project, taking the overall investment in the MBRP to $814 million. The Victorian Government has committed $48.8 million in further funding towards the project and is seeking $195.2 million from the Commonwealth.
After significant industry consultation, the package of shovel ready works will benefit freight operators by enhancing the network, reducing journey times, enabling more freight paths and delivering a more efficient freight task. It will support around 500 local jobs in construction across the project.
I understand that there is interest in developing an intermodal rail freight terminal at Ouyen in Victoria’s Mallee region, however this is a matter for my colleague, the Hon Melissa Horne MP, the Minister for Ports and Freight.
Eastern Metropolitan Region
In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs):
I thank the member for his question and for his support for Aboriginal communities in the Eastern Metropolitan Region. As the member notes, Yeng Gali Mullum Choir (Choir) receives support from Mullum Mullum Indigenous Gathering Place (Mullum Mullum). This support includes but is not limited to transportation to events and rehearsal catering. Mullum Mullum also covers the costs for the Choir’s One Music Australia membership fee that supports the Choir’s public performances of compositions, sound recordings and photocopies of sheet music.
The Choir has previously been awarded grants to support regional performances as well as costumes. As the member notes, the Choir is highly regarded in community and receives great support from those around them. The Choir donates all its earnings to Mullum Mullum’s building fund to support Mullum Mullum in achieving its aspiration of owning the building, and I want to thank them for their commitment to Aboriginal self-determination.
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) awarded approximately $30,000 to Mullum Mullum to support Elders. I understand that part of that funding supported the production of a CD for the Choir and Mullum Mullum is currently developing an Elders Biography Storybook.
There may be further opportunities for Mullum Mullum through the $10 million Coronavirus Aboriginal Community Response and Recovery Fund (Fund) established by the Andrews Government to support Aboriginal communities deal with the coronavirus pandemic.
The Fund provides grants for initiatives that support emergency relief, outreach and brokerage, cultural strengthening, and social and emotional wellbeing. So far, the Fund has allocated more than $1.4 million to support Aboriginal communities, with applications still open and reviewed on a monthly basis. I encourage Mullum Mullum to make an application through the Fund.
Written responses to questions without notice
Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.
2 to 12 November 2020
I Cook Foods
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
Substantive Question:
I can confirm that in June 2020, I Cook Foods Pty Ltd commenced legal action against the Department in the Supreme Court claiming compensation for what it alleges is the wrongful closure of the I Cook Foods premises. The Department has filed a defence to this claim and denies any wrongdoing.
Whether a police investigation is taking place is a matter for Victoria Police.
Supplementary Question:
I am advised that the legal matter between I Cook Foods Pty Ltd. and the Department is currently ongoing and total legal costs incurred are not yet known.
Commercial passenger vehicle industry
In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV) has played an important role in supporting the CPV industry to keep operating during the pandemic and will continue to do so as we move towards a COVID-normal environment.
The key to a viable CPV industry as we come out of COVID restrictions is community confidence in the safety of CPV services. As such, CPVV is ensuring the appropriate measures and tools are in place so CPV services can be provided safely as we progress along the roadmap for reopening.
Since the onset of the pandemic, CPVV has focused its education, monitoring and compliance activities on ensuring the safe provision of CPV services in a COVID-19 environment. Specifically, CPVV has:
• Developed tools and guidelines to support industry compliance with infection control and hygiene standards
• Conducted audit activities in respect to the largest booking service providers
• Conducted safety engagement and assurance activities in metropolitan Melbourne and large urban areas
• Created a regular engagement model with industry to provide information required to manage risks and comply with Government directions in a rapidly changing environment.
Additionally, to support community confidence in CPV services, new cleaning regulations will be introduced that clearly set out the vehicle cleaning activities required between passengers and between drivers. This will be particularly important as trip volumes continue to increase. As part of the $22.5 million industry assistance package, announced by the Government on 24 July 2020, $3.5 million worth of grants have been made available to the CPV industry to support increased cleaning and sanitation of vehicles. CPVV will further support the industry to meet the new cleaning requirements with guidance for drivers, vehicle owners and booking service providers.
Furthermore, as the Victorian CPV industry starts to rebuild and grow again, it will benefit from Victoria’s forward-looking regulatory environment and low market entry costs. Victoria’s CPV registration and accreditation fees are the lowest in Australia and Compulsory Third-Party insurance premiums and on-road registration costs for commercial passenger vehicles are the same as they are for private vehicles. This is not the case in other Australian jurisdictions and Victoria’s commercial passenger vehicle industry is far better placed than those in other states to rebuild as restrictions ease.
I am confident that the commercial passenger vehicle has the tools and support it requires to provide the Victorian community with safe commercial passenger vehicle services as the State continues to recover.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (28 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
The Victorian Government is working on a safe and sustainable framework to resume events and will continue to engage closely with industry and businesses as Victoria takes steps to COVID Normal.
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that small businesses, including those in the events industry that have been impacted by ongoing restrictions have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal operations. This support is flowing to small businesses in the form of cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance to make it through to the other side of the crisis.
As part of the $7 billion of business support measures, the Victorian Government has announced more than $280 million to help the state’s creative, sporting and visitor economy sectors through the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. This funding maintains jobs and helps individuals, organisations and businesses to generate income and develop new work.
The Victorian Government is also working in partnership with the City of Melbourne through the $100 million Melbourne City Recovery Fund to reactivate the CBD with COVIDSafe events and cultural activities to attract visitors back when it is safe to do so. Small businesses in the events industry will also benefit from the Government’s $150 million Experience Economy Survival Package that provides support for major tourist attractions, galleries and museums, sporting clubs and competitions, and the racing industry.
The Victorian Government has also announced the third round of the Business Support Fund, providing grants of up to $20,000 to eligible businesses to help them survive and prepare for COVID Normal.
Additional grants of $5,000 are also available to eligible hospitality businesses to adapt their operations to outdoor dining and to facilitate COVID Normal operations as part of the $58 million Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package.
Tax relief measures are providing much needed cash flow at this time and are supplemented by the Government’s waiver of liquor licencing fees for 2020 and 2021. And, event businesses with commercial premises leases can access free mediation support from the Victorian Small Business Commission to reach agreement on rent relief with their landlord under the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme.
More information on all the Victorian Government business support measures can be found on the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.
Horseracing
In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (29 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Racing has continued throughout the pandemic under extremely strict protocols to protect the health and safety of industry staff, participants and the wider community. These include restricting access to race meetings and training facilities to essential personnel only, mandatory temperature checks at venue entry points, and adhering to government mandated physical distancing guidelines.
The coronavirus (COVID-19) management plans put in place by Racing Victoria, Harness Racing Victoria, Greyhound Racing Victoria and racing clubs are comprehensive and have enabled the racing industry to continue to operate safely.
Industry participants should be commended for the responsible way in which they have conducted themselves with nearly 1,400 race meetings and over 14,000 races safely conducted under strict protocols across the three racing codes.
It is important to recognise that the vast majority of the activities undertaken by industry staff and participants are directly related to meeting essential animal welfare needs. This includes the provision of essential care and daily exercise for horses and greyhounds regardless of whether race meetings continued.
As well as a health crisis, COVID-19 is an economic crisis which has impacted large sectors of our economy. It is critical that we retain every job that we can, provided that the risk can be safely managed.
The Victorian racing industry accounts for more than 33,000 full-time equivalent jobs and contributes $4.3 billion to the Victorian economy. Despite the continuation of racing, the economic impact of the pandemic on the industry has been very significant. The prohibition of spectators at race meetings has had a significant impact on the financial viability of racing clubs throughout what is normally their busiest period.
The funding support provided through the Victorian Government’s Experience Economy Survival Package to the racing industry has ensured that:
• prizemoney returns to participants can be maintained to protect jobs, not only in racing, but associated industries
• racing clubs remain operationally viable and continue to maintain safe, high quality racing and training facilities and employ essential staff, and
• animal welfare standards are maintained.
V/Line
In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (29October 2020)
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):
I am advised:
I am aware of the current Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) Operation Esperance public hearings into allegations of serious corrupt conduct during tendering, procurement and subsequent management of major contracts within V/Line and Metro Trains.
The services provided by Transclean were examined as part of the hearings and IBAC has made no findings at this time. However let me assure the member that any findings which could made by IBAC would be assessed extremely seriously.
The Licensing and Regulation Division (LRD) of Victoria Police continuously assesses the suitability of individuals and businesses to continue to hold a private security licence.
To obtain and maintain a private security licence or registration, individuals must meet the probity requirements set out in section 25 of the Private Security Act 2004 (the Act). To meet the probity requirements, applicants must be at least 18 years old, not have certain criminal offences on their record and be found to be a ‘fit and proper person’. An applicant must also not be a ‘prohibited person’ which is someone who has been convicted of certain offences within the past 10 years or been found guilty with no conviction recorded in the last five years. The term ‘disqualifying offence’ is defined in section 13 of the Act, and includes offences such as drug trafficking, cultivating drugs in commercial quantities, offences involving violence against another person, dishonesty or theft, and offences relating to firearms and control of weapons laws.
If IBAC makes adverse findings against Transclean or any other private security business as part of its investigation, this could be considered by LRD and a determination made regarding their suitability to maintain a private security licence or registration.
If you or your constituents have specific information you wish to provide in relation to misconduct within the private security industry, I would encourage you to report this to LRD on 1300 651 645 or lrd@police.vic.gov.au. Alternatively, information in relation to Operation Esperance can be provided directly to IBAC on 1300 735 135 or info@ibac.vic.gov.au.
Corrections system
In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (29 October 2020)
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):
I am aware of the case of Mr Ross Konidaris and acknowledge the profound distress this tragic incident has caused to the victims of Mr Konidaris’ offending. As the courts and the Forensic Leave Panel operate independently of government, it is not appropriate for me to comment on a particular case. However, I can provide the following information in relation to the Member’s questions.
Question 1:
The Forensic Leave Panel annual report provides data on a range of matters including the number of applications for leave per year, the percentage of leave applications granted and the percentage of leave applications refused.
The Forensic Leave Panel operates independently of government and is subject to strict secrecy provisions under section 62 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. It cannot disclose any information in relation to its proceedings, except that contained in the annual report.
Question 2:
Decisions to grant leave in the community to those on supervision orders are made by the Forensic Leave Panel, an independent body presided over by a judge from the Supreme or County Court. For forensic patients at Thomas Embling Hospital, each panel hearing consists of a judicial member, a member appointed to represent the views of the community, the Chief Psychiatrist (or their nominee), and a medical practitioner with experience in forensic psychiatry. The leave application process includes advice from the patient’s treating team. The safety and wellbeing of members of the community, including victims and their families, is a key consideration.
The Panel takes a very cautious approach to granting leave. Initially a patient is granted a short period of leave, escorted by two or three staff members. There are strict conditions attached to leave, which are closely monitored. Leave is only granted if it will contribute to the person’s rehabilitation and the safety of the person or members of the public will not be seriously endangered as a result of the person being allowed leave.
If a patient can successfully participate in leave over a sustained period, the panel may decrease the number of escorts and increase the number of approved locations and purposes (such as leave granted for a non-medical purpose or to attend a nearby facility, such as a park), as well as the duration, of further periods of leave. Unsupervised leave is only granted after the patient has been able to demonstrate successful use of supervised leave over a sustained period. This slow approach to leave allows for a steady reintroduction into the community and provides the treating team with a valuable opportunity to monitor how the person copes and adapts in a community setting.
It is extremely rare that incidents occur while patients are on leave because of the risk assessment, regular monitoring and reviews that take place to ensure the safety of the community. Before a person can access leave, they are subject to a clinical assessment each time. The person’s mental state will be considered, as well as a range of issues relating to their safety and the safety of the public. Leave will not be permitted if the staff member has any concerns about the person’s mental state or the safety of the community if the person is allowed to take the leave.
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (30 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that all of the Integrity agencies are adequately funded, including the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. These agencies are integral in providing transparency and ensuring accountability across the Victorian Government. Well run and wellresourced integrity agencies further ensure that the broader community has confidence in how the Government administers itself.
The Government actively monitors resourcing levels of all public agencies and notes that IBAC has underspent its funding since its establishment, including in 2019–20. IBAC was provided over $46 million funding in 2019–20, which is more than double the amount of funding provided to other Victorian integrity agencies. I also note that NSW’s equivalent agency, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), had expenditure of $29 million in 2018–19, which was 66 per cent of IBAC’s expenditure ($44 million) in the same period. Further, the NSW ICAC received 15 per cent more matters than Victoria’s IBAC in that year.
The 2020–21 Budget will be released on 24 November 2020.
Drug driving
In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (30 October 2020)
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):
I am advised:
Dangerous driving is a major threat to community safety and reckless individuals who drive while drug affected have no place on our roads.
There are two legislative provisions underpinning Victoria’s drug driving testing program which permit Victoria Police to take both blood and saliva samples from drivers to assess drug impairment. The availability of these two approaches to drug driving enforcement allows Victoria Police to both specifically enforce high risk offences while creating system wide deterrence.
The Road Safety (Amendment) Bill 2000 which amended the Road Safety Act 1986, allows police to undertake a “Standard Impairment Assessment” at the road side and authorises the taking and analysis of a blood sample and the subsequent presenting of expert evidence at court on the level of driver impairment. This is the impairment testing that the honourable member refers to. As this is a time consuming and resource intensive process, it is most typically employed after a crash.
The Road Safety (Drug Driving) Bill 2003 which also amended the Road Safety Act 1986, allows police to take a saliva sample at the road side, which if positive will be analysed in a laboratory. A laboratory certificate indicating the presence of a proscribed drug is the basis for a drug driving infringement or court summons. This process is sufficiently quick to allow mass roadside screening—currently 150,000 test per year. The comparatively high level of testing under this process supports general deterrence against drug driving across the wider community, similar to that achieved by the successful alcohol program.
The Victorian Government is exploring ways to improve these processes and strengthen the system- wide deterrence of Victoria’s drug driving program. These initiatives are in response to the growing detection of methamphetamine as a factor in road deaths, with over 22 per cent of driver/rider fatalities in 2018 found at autopsy to have stimulants, primarily methamphetamine in their blood.
Victoria Police is currently conducting the Roadside Infringement Trial which is investigating a new process that allows a drug driving infringement to be issued at the roadside while maintaining the necessary laboratory confirmation analysis. The trial commenced on 1 September 2020 and is scheduled to conclude at the end of February 2021. The trial will provide valuable insights into streamlining systems processes to achieve efficiency improvements, and to create more effective deterrence from the immediacy of the sanction.
Victoria Police is also working with the other road safety agencies to complete an end-to-end process review of the drug driving program to identify further efficiency opportunities.
In addition, the Victorian Government is also releasing a new Road Safety Strategy next year which will outline further initiatives to improve Victoria’s drug driving enforcement activities, including strengthened and intelligence-led targeting of high risk drug driving offenders.
COVID-19
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
The Government’s priority for the 2020–21 Victorian Budget is the State’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, including a focus on supporting families and businesses, job growth and continuing the Government’s significant infrastructure program. As is usual practice, budget decisions will be communicated when the budget is released on 24 November.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
Substantive response:
The rules around face masks are based on public health advice, which is constantly reviewed based on epidemiological data and analysis of transmission risk across the community.
The mandatory mask rule has played a central role in reducing the spread of COVID-19 and defeating Victoria’s second wave.
Supplementary response:
There have always been those in our community with a lawful mask exemption for health reasons. This remains unchanged as businesses open up. A vast majority of people will continue to wear masks for as long as is necessary to manage aggregate transmission risk across the community. Everyone should also continue to practice hand hygiene and social distancing—this is more important than ever as businesses and facilities begin to open.
Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
In reply to Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that all of the Integrity agencies are adequately funded, including the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC). These agencies are integral in providing transparency and ensuring accountability across the Victorian Government. Well run and well-resourced integrity agencies further ensure that the broader community has confidence in how the Government administers itself.
The Government actively monitors resourcing levels of all public agencies and notes that IBAC has underspent its funding since its establishment, including in 2019–20. IBAC was provided over $46 million funding in 2019–20, which is more than double the amount of funding provided to other Victorian integrity agencies.
The Victorian Government understands the impact that the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Act 2019 has had on the integrity agencies and will work to ensure they can meet their remit.
The 2020–21 Budget will be released on 24 November 2020.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):
I am advised:
In response to the initial question, at the time of the protest, Victoria was in the third step of restrictions and, per the Chief Health Officer’s directions, public gatherings could consist of no more than 10 individuals and this protest was in breach of those directions.
The police response to this gathering resulted in a large number of arrests. The processing of arrested persons took considerable time during which police moved many to the shaded sides of the road and assisted those with needs in the first instance. The Police Commander-Strategic approved this policing tactic.
Victoria Police handed out cups of water to arrested persons, as previously provided bottled water was been thrown at police and others. The Police Forward Commander approved the distribution of the water in cups.
Horseracing
In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10 November 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your question and your ongoing interest in animal welfare.
The loss of any racehorse is distressing and the Victorian Government joins Racing Victoria (RV) in extending its sincere condolences to trainer, Aidan O’Brien, and the connections of Anthony Van Dyck.
I am advised that the premise of the substantive and supplementary questions raised, that Anthony Van Dyck was euthanised after being loaded into the horse ambulance, is incorrect.
RV has advised that Anthony Van Dyck was humanely euthanised on the track after sustaining a fractured fetlock during the running of the 2020 Melbourne Cup. The horse received immediate veterinary care but unfortunately, due to the nature of the injury and the prognosis for recovery, was unable to be saved.
RV refutes any suggestion that the veterinary treatment of any horse would be influenced by factors other than the immediate welfare of the horse. RV’s veterinary services team uphold the highest standards of professional integrity and the interests of the horse are always paramount.
RV has further advised that a fatality report will be prepared by RV’s integrity department, as is standard practice in circumstances where a track death has occurred. RV has committed to releasing the findings of that report.
The Victorian Government is committed to improving equine welfare outcomes both on and off the racetrack. Since December 2014, the Government has provided $10.7 million in funding to enhance the integrity framework in Victorian thoroughbred and harness racing, including $4.4m for programs and projects specifically to improve equine welfare outcomes. This includes $2.25 million to jointly fund the ‘Equine Limb Injury Prevention Program’ which seeks to help the industry better understand and reduce equine limb injuries.
The Victorian Government will continue to support RV to monitor and improve equine welfare standards throughout the industry.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11 November 2020)
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):
Response:
As the state opens up to more movement between regional and metropolitan areas, DHHS will undertake a proactive testing drive across different local government areas. Representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services are meeting with local councils and representatives of community health providers to start to plan a collaborative approach to testing.
Response to Supplementary Question:
The approach in each LGA will be tailored to the local context and developed in close consultation with local government and other relevant stakeholders and community groups. There will be an emphasis on comprehensive community engagement, encouraging people with even mild symptoms to come forward for testing, as well as some very targeted asymptomatic testing in key industries and workplaces.
Veterans services
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11 November 2020)
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):
Response:
While the responsibility for the welfare of our returned service people sits first and foremost with the Federal Government, the Victorian Government is committed to supporting veterans living in Victoria, including through accommodation supports.
One way the Government is doing this is through the Richmond Veterans Accommodation Project, which provides vital housing, welfare and counselling support for veterans who are facing crisis and are in need of short-term accommodation.
In 2015, the Victorian Government entered into partnership with Housing Choices Australia and RSL Victoria to build and maintain five units in Richmond for veterans experiencing housing instability. The Government provided $1.35 million through the Victorian Property Fund towards the build of the units. Uptake has been high since its inception and there have been many success stories from veterans living in the complex finding employment, returning to study or finding long-term secure housing.
The Victorian Budget 2018–19 committed $200,000 for an evaluation of this project. The evaluation found the project model works well assisting veterans with complex needs and wraparound support.
In addition, I have also asked the Victorian Veterans Council to undertake a new Veteran Sector Study in 2021 to identify and address gaps in services required by the veteran community, including housing and homelessness services. In relation to the 2015 Sector Review, Government, in partnership with the Victorian Veterans Council, has addressed all 14 Recommendations.
An increase in service delivery has occurred in the veteran sector with a number of service hubs now operating or in the pipeline, including the RSL Victoria’s Veterans Hub project in Warrnambool and Frankston and the Federal Government’s commitment to establish Veteran Wellbeing Centres across Australia, including Wodonga. RSL Victoria is currently working with the Wodonga veteran community to develop a business case, funded by the Federal Government, for the Hub. At the time of the commitment to develop a business case for service hubs, none of this activity was underway. Given this shift towards the sector filling the space, the decision was made to no longer pursue the business case.
The Victorian Government is following these developments in the sector with interest and continues to liaise closely with ex-service organisations and the Victorian Veterans Council to support the veteran community.
I would be pleased to meet with you to provide further information on these matters.
Response:
On 12 April 2020, the Victorian Government allocated $59.4 million for a Mental Health and Wellbeing Coronavirus Response Package to help meet demand as Victorians reach out for help with stress, isolation and uncertainty. As part of this, we provided $100,000 to establish a call centre to connect veterans with government and support services, led by RSL Victoria.
On 1 October, I was pleased to officially launch the Veteran Central (VetCen) call centre and the new 1300 MILVET number. VetCen connects veterans to services and assistance including: accommodation; help with paying bills; emergency food relief; mental, physical and medical health support; employment opportunities, vocational training and compensation advocacy.
Prior to this, in the Victorian Budget 2018–19 the Government committed to build the capacity and capability of ex-service organisations through training and information sessions. In 2019 the Government presented veteran welfare information sessions in metropolitan and regional locations to provide ex-service organisations with information about Victorian Government welfare programs and services including mental health, disability and homelessness.
To refresh our understanding of the needs of veterans and how to best connect them to the services they need, I have asked the Victorian Veterans Council to commission a new Veteran Sector Study in 2021. The Study will build on the findings of the 2008 and 2015 studies.
The Victorian Government has a productive working relationship with the Commonwealth Government and welcomes the inclusion of a census question. I will be advocating to the Commonwealth that it meet its responsibilities to veterans and their families and fully respond to the 2019 Productivity Inquiry Report, A Better Way to Support Veterans. The report found that the veteran compensation and rehabilitation system is not fit for purpose and requires fundamental reform as it does not focus on the lifetime wellbeing of veterans, is difficult to navigate, inequitable, poorly administered and is governed by overly complex legislation.
The Victorian Government will continue to liaise closely with ex-service organisations and the Victorian Veterans Council to identify and address any gaps in services required by the veteran community.