Thursday, 26 November 2020

The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 9.32 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

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

Business of the house

Orders of the day

The SPEAKER (09:33): I wish to advise the house that general business, order of the day 1, will be removed from the notice paper unless members wishing their matter to remain advise the Clerk in writing before 2.00 pm today.

Notices of motion

Notice given.

Petitions

Following petition presented to house by Clerk:

Warneet jetties

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria

The Petition of Warneet residents and wider community draws to the attention of the House.

The below signed would like to formally request that the entire Warneet North Jetty and the Southern End of the Warneet South Jetty be reinstated to a safe and usable condition.

The Jetties at Warneet are an integral part of the Warneet and wider boating community, People from all areas of Melbourne and especially the City of Casey use these jetties. Families use them for recreational purposes, such as swimming, fishing and boating they also learn to sail off them. The jetties are important for children to develop skills in these areas.

Warneet is a small coastal village 15 kms South of Cranbourne. At the heart of the Warneet community is Rutherford Inlet, approximately 4 kilometres from Westernport. Much of the channel, north of pile 26, contains moored craft that require use of the jetties to safely board and disembark passengers.

The Warneet North Boat Club rely on the Warneet North Jetty to operate their club and enable members to their access vessels. The Jetties attract high visitor numbers throughout the year with both fishers and recreational users.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria formally request that Parks Victoria reinstate the Entire Warneet North Jetty and the Southern End of the Warneet South Jetty to a safe and usable condition by 1 January 2021.

The petition also requests the Minister for Fishing & Boating to consider providing an opportunity for funding to repair or replace the Warneet Jetties.

By Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (860 signatures).

Tabled.

Ordered that petition be considered next day on motion of Mr R. SMITH (Warrandyte).

Documents

Documents

Incorporated list as follows:

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

Cenitex—Report 2019–20

Gambling Regulation Act 2003—Review of Part 6A of the Point of Consumption Tax on wagering and betting

Local Jobs First—Report 2019–20

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—No Jab No Play 2020 review under s 149A.

Bills

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020

Appropriation

The SPEAKER (09:35): I wish to advise the house that I have received a message from the Governor recommending an appropriation for the purposes of the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020.

Committees

Environment and Planning Committee

Membership

The SPEAKER (09:35): I wish to advise the house that I have received the resignation of Mr Cheeseman from the Environment and Planning Standing Committee effective from 25 November 2020.

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Reporting dates

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

That:

the resolution of the house of 28 May 2019 be amended to extend the reporting date for the Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee’s inquiry into responses to historical forced adoptions in Victoria to no later than 1 July 2021; and

the resolution of the house of 1 May 2019 be amended to extend the reporting date for the Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee’s inquiry into access to TAFE for learners with disability to no later than 30 September 2021.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the house

Adjournment

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (09:36): I move:

That:

(1) The house, at its rising, adjourns until Tuesday, 8 December 2020, or an earlier day and hour to be fixed by the Speaker.

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

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

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

Ethiopia conflict

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (09:36): I rise to speak of the tragic conflict occurring in Ethiopia and express my wish for peace. A battle is being fought between rival military forces in Tigray in Ethiopia’s north. This battle has set in train a mass exodus and a humanitarian crisis on a devastating scale. My electorate of Essendon is home to many people of Ethiopian background. It matters to them that I can speak these words in this place. It is one small way I can offer my support. My Ethiopian constituents are glued for hours to their screens to try to glean any scrap of information about loved ones caught up in the crisis. We forget sometimes in this country how fortunate we are not to face these kinds of conflicts, but we must never, ever forget.

I quote here from an Age article to tell you just how desperate the Tigray situation is as its citizens make impossible choices:

The women were midway through their labour when the hospital director came in and told Mihret Glahif she had to run for her life.

It didn’t matter that her patients were giving birth, the staff had to leave immediately. The civil war had arrived, and it was knocking on the door.

“We heard gunshots and bombs,” the 25-year-old nurse said. “We left all of the patients. Some of them were injured soldiers, some of them were women in labour. We left everyone.”

There are reports emerging of bombings, beatings, machete massacres, even ethnic cleansing. Ethiopia is on the brink, and experts point to the country being in a pregenocide phase. To my Ethiopian constituents, many of whom have arrived in Victoria as refugees, I send my sincere support and wish for peace.

Health star ratings

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (09:38): I raise the concerns of farmers in my electorate about the changes that the forum on food regulation are making to the health star ratings for vegetable and fruit juice. At present fruit juices average 4.9 stars, but with the new health star ratings most juices will fall to a rating of between 2 and 3.3 stars. By contrast, diet soft drinks will increase their rating from 2 to 3.5 stars, higher than the health star rating for 100 per cent fruit or vegetable juice that has no added sugar. This is sending all the wrong messages when it comes to promoting a healthy diet—soft drink rated higher than fruit juice. It has juice manufacturers who buy fruit and vegetables from farmers in my electorate questioning the value of even being involved in the health star rating system when it delivers such a perverse star rating as diet soft drinks being healthier than fruit juice. I ask the Minister for Health to actually take these concerns to the forum on food regulation and have this crazy situation corrected. The farmers in my electorate and the fruit juice manufacturers in my electorate just believe that it is plain wrong that you have a higher star rating for diet soft drinks than you do for 100 per cent pure fruit juice.

Budget 2020–21

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (09:39): There is no doubt that 2020 has been a very challenging year for the residents of Sydenham and for our whole state, and I am proud to say that the 2020–21 budget focuses on putting people first and will ensure our state is well equipped to build a strong road to recovery post COVID. In my ministerial portfolios this government is investing in keeping our whole state safe, including $18 million to directly address the drivers of crime through crime prevention initiatives and investments; $11.8 million to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal young people in the justice system; $4.3 million for victims services, including the Victims of Crime Helpline and programs that support the most vulnerable in our community, and particularly vulnerable witnesses to provide evidence; and $100 million for safety and support measures in Corrections Victoria’s youth justice system so that they can continue their response to the pandemic and keep our prison system safe.

There is plenty of exciting news as well for the residents of Sydenham in the Victorian budget: $16.8 million for the removal of the roundabouts at the Melton Highway–Sunshine Avenue–Old Calder Highway intersections, which border with the member for Niddrie’s electorate; funding for the Organ Pipes National Park and Brimbank Park; $1.8 million for the upgrade of Taylors Lakes Secondary College; and $7.5 million for Taylors Lakes Primary School to upgrade their oval and finally get a competition-grade gym, which is well overdue.

Gembrook electorate

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (09:40): Ten years ago on 27 November I had the privilege to be elected to the seat of Gembrook. On that night the results early on allowed me to celebrate with friends, family, volunteers and the community. I would to first congratulate my fellow 2010ers who are still here with us today: the members for Forest Hill, Gippsland East, Ovens Valley, Eildon and Caulfield, and Georgie Crozier and Craig Ondarchie in the other place. Could I place on record my thanks to each and every member I have worked with and all those who have worked in our electorate since—you are all part of this journey. To my family near and far a huge thankyou, especially to Jo, Mikaela and Chloe—thank you very much for your support. To my Liberal Party and every volunteer who has handed out how-to-vote cards in Gembrook and to all the members of my committee along the way, with special thanks to Phil Macreadie, who has supported me as the chair in Gembrook for nearly the entire time.

To the Gembrook community, thank you for your trust. We have achieved so much together, with the Officer Specialist School, Officer Secondary College, improved sports grounds, a full rebuild of Emerald Primary School, road upgrades, and the list goes on. But there is so much more to do. In the past decade we have faced challenges, none more so than young people taking their own lives in Casey and Cardinia. There is a lot of work to do to make sure people have a place to go and can reach out for help. To the team at Berwick College, I cannot wait to see the new health and wellbeing centre I have been proud to support for so many years. Finally, I look forward to representing my community until either I have no more to offer or the electorate chooses a new path. But in the words of Jeff Kennett, I am here to serve.

COVID-19

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (09:42): It has been a challenging year for constituents in my Ivanhoe electorate. The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has affected the health and wellbeing of communities. Many families have endured economic and social disruptions not seen in a century. We thank our inspiring health workers at Austin Health, Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg and Warringal Private Hospital and our aged-care staff. Together we dedicate ourselves to staying safe so that we can keep our state open. Your sacrifices in my electorate mean more of us can be with each other this festive season.

Banyule Primary School

Mr CARBINES: In 2018 the Premier, the member for Mulgrave, visited Banyule Primary School to review plans for the rebuild, and a master plan and a new gymnasium were funded thanks to a $4.47 million grant. Last month I was able to share a new announcement of good news with principal Sharon Marmo, assistant principal Natalie Shanahan and their 715 students, that $12.386 million in funding would be provided to finish the job.

Families across schools in the Ivanhoe electorate have done a phenomenal job of supporting their children to learn from home, and I thank our teachers and support staff for their dedication as well.

Tarakan public housing estate

Mr CARBINES: The Andrews government has built 130 new apartments and townhouses in Tarakan Street, West Heidelberg. The old walk-up flats, built in the 1950s, have been demolished. As chair of the West Heidelberg public housing renewal project consultative committee, I would like to thank residents and the community organisations who have worked hard to make sure this development features modern, sustainable design and improved open space in our area. New homes and families are coming to West Heidelberg. It is a great place to live.

Bushfire preparedness

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (09:43): I want to raise an issue that highlights why ministers and governments need to restore some common sense to their departments and agencies. This situation would sit very well in an episode of Utopia. My office was contacted some months ago by an elderly couple seeking to have their nature strip fuel reduction burned in East Gippsland. It is an area of about 200 metres. Inquiries revealed a burn plan has been in place for several years: the CFA would burn the roadside, which was VicRoads land. A tree inspection deemed that there were trees that needed to be protected and then permissions gained to remove other vegetation from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, the third agency involved. My office was told this would take some time and people need to be patient. How long do you need to be patient? A decade?

But this is not where it ends. We were then advised that before anything could proceed, once all these permissions were granted, community engagement sessions need to be undertaken to gauge people’s reactions. This suggested that if it was not popular, this work would not be done. We are talking about community safety here and measures that save lives. Even so, with all this, why can’t it be done within weeks? Why years? And then if a person gets sick of waiting and goes out and does this work themselves, you watch the bureaucrats and the staffers run out with their pens and pieces of paper ready to book these people and write fines and prosecute. You cannot have it both ways. We need some common sense restored.

Budget 2020–21

Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (09:45): This Labor government matters. We matter because we have committed to put people first and recover from the global pandemic, and nothing is more important than that. This week’s state budget outlines record investment in the things that matter—families, communities, jobs, infrastructure—for our growing state. I was delighted to see that Tuesday’s budget will provide $6.6 million to fully fund the business case for the much-needed Bulla bypass and $4.4 million for heritage buildings and land to form part of the Jacksons Hill master plan—a really important project in my local community. I was delighted yesterday morning to join the Minister for Health at the Sunbury Day Hospital, which will soon be transformed into the Sunbury Community Hospital—an outstanding local project that is certainly very warmly welcomed in my community. On top of that, there is $10.5 million for Sunbury West Primary and $3.2 million for Diggers Rest Primary.

All of these projects build upon some of the work around the removal of the Sunbury level crossing, the construction of a brand new multilevel car park at the Sunbury station, duplicating Sunbury Road and upgrading and modernising Gladstone Park Primary School, Gladstone Views Primary, Sunbury Primary, Salesian College and Sunbury Downs. Many of those projects are well underway, as are some of the local sporting upgrades at Boardman Reserve, Langama Park, Meadow Park Reserve and Diggers Rest Recreation Reserve. These are important projects, creating local jobs and getting things done.

COVID-19

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (09:46): It was great to be out and about on Chapel Street over the weekend and see our local shopping strips coming back to life. Our shops, our restaurants and our bars—I was not short of a beer during the lockdown, but it was great to have a beer out and about on Chapel Street. The outside dining stands that are being built are really bringing our Chapel Street back to life, and hopefully they can become a much more permanent part of life on Chapel Street. But traders are not out of the woods yet, and many did not survive. I really just want to acknowledge the hard work of our local traders and of traders groups like Chapel Street Precinct and Toorak Road precinct who have worked really hard to help traders get through this really difficult time. I look forward to seeing our local shopping strips thrive even further. There is so much more to be done. I want to acknowledge that I went out on Chapel Street after I had got a negative COVID test. I just remind everyone as well that we might be on triple doughnuts, but the Prahran town hall Star Health clinic is still open seven days a week. Please continue to get tested if you have symptoms.

Electric vehicles

Mr HIBBINS: I would also like to encourage the government to dump the electric vehicle tax. You got a lot right—a lot right—in this budget, but sometimes you get it terribly wrong, and this is one of those occasions. You have got to know when to hold them, you have got to know when to fold them and you have got to know when to walk away. Fold and walk away from the EV tax. Trust me. Take my advice on this one.

COVID-19

Mr SCOTT (Preston) (09:48): Firstly I would like to rise to acknowledge the wonderful work undertaken by Your Community Health during the pandemic. Members of this wonderful community health service—led ably by Phillip Bain, who is a longstanding community member and a committed individual who was appointed, actually, by the Liberal government to the Victorian Multicultural Commission as a commissioner but has served under both governments in many roles—have gone out to COVID-positive individuals, assisting them with their welfare. They have conducted testing, and they have been out helping to organise community outreach, educating and taking masks to vulnerable members of the community. These are people who have risked their health and welfare for the benefit of others in a way that is often not acknowledged, but this has been a really great community-driven effort. They have been knocking on the doors of those do not have access to food and providing food parcels during isolation. They have been working tirelessly to protect the rest of the community.

And there has been a particularly important role being played by dentists. Dentists, as many may not be aware, are actually very expert in infection control as a profession because of the risks of infection particularly in the upper part of the jaw to the brain, so dentists have been playing a particular role in ensuring infection control. And not a single member, as far I am aware, of those doing that important risky work at Darebin Community Health, which is now called Your Community Health, were infected during the pandemic. I would like to pay tribute to those who put themselves at risk, those who worked so hard and those who served the community.

Rowville rail line

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (09:50): This statement condemns the Andrews Labor government for the total lack of commitment to build a rail line to my electorate of Rowville. The constituents in my electorate want a rail line; they have made this very clear. This year in June the Minister for Public Transport stated that planning and design for light rail from Caulfield to Rowville are progressing and that the commonwealth plan for heavy rail is incompatible with the Suburban Rail Loop. In April 2018 the government announced this planning for a light rail design would take 12 months, yet in November 2020 it is still not finished. COVID is not the excuse. The minister has boasted recently of several transport projects progressed during Victoria’s COVID lockdown. I have received thousands of calls and emails and have had face-to-face consultations with constituents who are struggling to get into work, university and the CBD due to the fact that they are constantly relying on buses. Why is Rowville constantly overlooked and disregarded when it comes to public transport infrastructure? It is about time this government listened to the people of Rowville, who are getting fed up.

Local government elections

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (09:51): Congratulations to the newly and re-elected councillors at Frankston City Council and the City of Kingston. In Frankston, congratulations to mayor Kris Bolam, Steven Hughes, Sue Baker, deputy mayor Nathan Conroy, Suzette Tayler, David Asker, Brad Hill, Claire Harvey and Liam Hughes. In Kingston, congratulations to the 11 new councillors who will now be representing their communities as single-ward councillors, in particular Cameron Howe, who will be representing the communities in Carrum, Patterson Lakes and Bonbeach in the newly created Banksia ward. Congratulations also to re-elected mayor Steve Staikos.

I am looking forward to working with all councillors in delivering important projects and upgrades, services and funding for the benefit of our local communities, like the duplication of Hall Road and Lathams Road in Carrum Downs, the level crossing removals and new station builds on the Frankston line, the construction of the Mordialloc Freeway, the Frankston Hospital redevelopment, the RF Miles Recreation Reserve redevelopment, sports funding for our local sporting and community clubs, investments in our lifesaving clubs, the SES, coastguards and the CFAs, and the delivery of three- and four-year-old funded kindergarten just to name a few.

Can I also acknowledge in particular all of the women who have been elected to Frankston and Kingston councils, and I note the record number of women to be elected to local councils across Victoria, with 272 women having been elected, making up a record 43.8 per cent, the highest in Australia. It is an important measure of equality and inclusion that our political representatives represent our communities, and I hope that this trend continues. Congratulations to all.

Shepparton Festival

Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (09:52): The Shepparton Festival will hold its 25th anniversary event next year in winter. Titled ‘Unify 2021’ it will be held across the Goulburn Valley from 11 to 27 June. The tagline ‘Unique events in unusual places’ has us all intrigued. Shepparton Festival general manager Louise Tremper says the festival committee is looking forward to delivering a safe and exciting festival in 2021. She said it aims to:

… reignite the creativity that our region is so well known for and to giving a boost to our visitor economy.

The festival director, Jamie Lea, says she is very eager to get to work again, as the festival will reach new heights and go beyond expectations to deliver an outstanding experience. She said:

Unify is a call to action on so many levels and the perfect theme for a post-lockdown festival. We are all hungry for a festival, but before we know it, June will be here …

Being a winter festival, it will take advantage of the darkness of night and the magic of projection. The festival will have special input from Bill Kelly, the world-renowned artist, who will bring his creative and artistic skills to bear.

Each year we have been delighted by the venues used and the extraordinary performances that have been brought to our city, and next year will be no exception. The recent cash injection from the state government of $49 000 will be a great boost to the festival, taking it to the next level of professional development. I extend an invitation to our new Minister for Creative Industries, who is here in the chamber, to launch the Shepparton Festival and to formally open it.

Wendouree electorate

Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (09:54): This week marks the second anniversary of the 2018 state election and my election to this place representing the electorate of Wendouree, and what an extraordinary two years it has been of delivering for Ballarat.

We are getting on with our plans for the $541 million redevelopment of Ballarat Base Hospital to ensure we have world-class health care on our doorstep. Community consultation is occurring on our $7 million upgrade to the Wendouree West reserve, and the ground works are underway for the new soccer pitches. We have invested $8 million at Ballarat High School to upgrade and modernise the JG Sheehan wing, and $3.5 million for Mount Rowan Secondary College for their major redevelopment. The concrete pour has occurred at Delacombe Primary School, and the $6.5 million gym will be completed in the first half of next year. Our $100 million Ballarat GovHub is near completion and is opening in the first quarter of 2021. We are looking forward to welcoming the people who will fill the 600 jobs in the centre of Ballarat, which will be a huge boost for local cafes and businesses. The $500 million Ballarat line upgrade is nearly complete and will provide a safer and more reliable train service to and from Melbourne, with more services more often. We have also built a second platform at Wendouree station and an overpass with lifts and ramps to be opened in 2021. We are keeping Ballarat moving with a $60 million spend on key intersections. I have so much more to add, but so many projects and so little time.

Warrandyte electorate schools

Mr R SMITH (Warrandyte) (09:55): It is hard to believe that with a $155 billion debt and a $23 billion deficit not one dollar has been allocated for the schools in my electorate beyond Heatherwood School. Many of the schools in my electorate have desperately been in need of urgent works for a long time, and it is amazing that in successive budgets this government has been so mean and so political that they have been unable to find the money to help the students in my electorate, particularly Warrandyte High School, which is in need of significant funding. In fact I have a letter in my office from the Minister for Education saying that he acknowledges that Warrandyte High School is in need of funds and in that letter he presents some weasel words about making sure that they will be funded, but yet again, as I said, that is one school that has received no funding whatsoever. There are other schools in my electorate—Donvale Primary School and Beverley Hills Primary School, both of which are wonderful schools with great staff, teachers and principals—and those schools deserve a fair allocation of funding from this government as well.

Local government elections

Mr R SMITH: Can I also take this opportunity to congratulate all those councillors who have been elected in Manningham, Maroondah and Nillumbik council areas, which my electorate covers. I particularly want to say congratulations to a good friend of mine, Nora Lamont, who was elected once again and was also subsequently elected as deputy mayor. Nora is an amazing representative of her community. The results in the local government election show that she has the backing of her community, and I wish her well for this local government term.

Disability inclusion package

Mr RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (09:57): The disability inclusion package is an amazing reform for our students who need that additional support in our education system. For so long parents in our communities, their guardians or their carers have been lobbyists for their kids to get the very best outcomes and to change the outcomes in the schools. It is no fault of our educators or our principals; there has just not been enough resourcing to go around. It has been through no lack of effort or determination or care or consistency in approach to make sure that we get the very best outcomes for these kids, but resources have not been up to it.

This $1.6 billion package transforms that. It delivers additional support like we have never seen before, doubling the number of students who will receive that support in the classroom to reach their ambitions, because every student in Victoria, regardless of their circumstances or their needs or their postcode, deserves the very best education. But it goes further into the clinical space as well. For too long, teachers and parents and education support staff have had to look at a deficit model rather than a strengths-based approach. This changes with this approach, after the 100-school pilot transformed those outcomes, and makes sure that we put the strengths of these kids and everything that they can achieve, rather than the deficit and what they are not able to do, at the forefront of funding and consideration as well. This is world-leading, transformational education policy, and it will make a real difference.

Suburban Rail Loop

Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (09:58): Labor’s plan for Victoria is not just about recovering from the coronavirus pandemic, it is about delivering game-changing, long-term infrastructure. That is what progressive Labor governments do, and we are building a better Victoria and building a better Burwood. The Suburban Rail Loop is a game changer for our state and for my electorate. With $2.2 billion recently committed to stage 1 of the project, the Andrews government is getting on and getting it done. This new underground rail line between Box Hill and Cheltenham will run through the heart of the Burwood electorate and literally revolutionise the way my constituents travel around our city and our state.

Burwood electorate schools

Mr FOWLES: As well as massive investment in public transport, the Andrews government is delivering for the great schools of the Burwood electorate. Ashwood High School is a brilliant local school that has experienced a complete turnaround in fortunes in recent years. Last week I announced an additional $9.7 million to upgrade Ashwood High, bringing to $10.3 million the commitments made over the course of this most challenging of years. This funding will ensure that Ashwood remains at the pinnacle of academic excellence in the east. The new senior school STEM and research centre, school entrance and parking facilities will all be a testament to our commitment to great public schools.

But our Burwood school upgrades do not stop there. We are delivering for Wattle Park Primary as well. With an investment of over $660 000, the Andrews government will replace old portables with state-of-the-art facilities to be used for the school’s exceptional Chinese language program and to provide a safe space for crucial mental health supports. Labor is delivering for Victorians.

Rahimi Baryalai

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (10:00): I would like to take the opportunity to recognise a man of the south-east who has become something of an institution. Mr Rahimi has been providing hospitality to Dandenong and the greater south-east for many years and is well known to many of my constituents as a leader and a gentleman, in the truest sense of the word. He has taken on an honorary role with the Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre, and we are grateful to have his insight, vision and wise counsel. Mr Rahimi’s restaurant displays the best of the Afghan diaspora community. His hospitality is unsurpassed. But it is when he speaks about his wonderful family that Mr Rahimi’s face really lights up. He has a brood of children, a wonderful wife and a son, Rumaan, who has been featured in newspapers and is the source of great pride to many of us. Thank you to Mr Rahimi for all you do. We wish you well in your retirement.

Victoria Tamil Senior Citizens Benevolent Society

Ms RICHARDS: I would like to acknowledge the work of the Victoria Tamil Senior Citizens Benevolent Society. Cranbourne is one of the most diverse and vibrant areas in Victoria, and with that diversity comes a highly active and engaged group of people who come together to support each other as members of diaspora communities. These groups and community networks have become all the more important during the pandemic as they have been essential in overcoming the cultural, linguistic and other challenges that living away from your motherland brings. We have seen groups of all cultures and faiths really step up to the challenges of the coronavirus. In particular, I would like to recognise the work of Meha Sivarasa and Sam Sellathurai, the president of the Victoria Tamil Senior Citizens Benevolent Society, who have come up with a number of ways to connect the community.

Anne Hamilton

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (10:01): I rise to recognise and acknowledge an exceptional Mount Waverley district community member, crossing supervisor and volunteer Anne Hamilton. For the past 36 years Anne has been a well-known fixture at Pinewood Primary School, working tirelessly as a lollipop lady to help our young students and families safely cross Pinewood Drive on a daily basis. Anne knows all the children by name and has been that consistent, familiar, smiling face to greet students, rain, hail or shine. She has over the years also volunteered her time in the school canteen and as a parent-reader assisting in the classroom. Anne really does epitomise our Aussie community spirit. . As she hangs up her hi-vis jacket after nearly four decades of service, on behalf of the Mount Waverley district I would like to thank Anne for her unwavering dedication to her community—our community—and her care and kindness that is shown to all.

Local government elections

Mr FREGON: On another matter, a big congratulations to our new Monash council, who were sworn in on 10 November 2020. I look forward to working with all of the councillors. It was great to see my good mate Cr Brian Little elected as mayor and Cr Shane McCluskey as deputy mayor. I would also like to thank all of those candidates who were unsuccessful, with a special shout-out for Shane Dwyer, Bill Dayandas and Simon Miller. They all ran excellent campaigns in what were very difficult and unprecedented circumstances. It was also fantastic to see our women’s representation on council rise from two to four councillors this year.

Pakenham Consolidated School

Ms CRUGNALE (Bass) (10:03): A grand day out at Pakenham Consolidated—I was met by principal Katrina Stewart and students Mark and Lily from the Hands on Learning Program (HOP), and joined by their classmates Codey, Andre, Michael, Justin, another Lily, Amber, Becky, Thomas, Maxwell, Kaeleb and Eleni. What a delightful and energised group of year 5 and 6s—we chatted about their year’s highlights and lowlights then moved onto gardens, excursions and lawnmowing. With their teachers Ms Foot, Ms Raab and Mr Chatwood, we all congregated around a bench table the kids had built. Bursting with delight, I announced $10 million for major upgrades and a dedicated space for their HOP. Jaws dropped with masks on. There was clapping and loud cheers. The principal was lost for words—hard to believe, I know. So good is this program that they were recent finalists in the Victorian Education Excellence Awards.

This school is going from strength to strength. I want to thank principal Katrina Stewart and her fabulous teaching and support staff. They love their school and give their absolute best to their students so they can have every opportunity and every support and have a positive learning experience in every program. The halls will soon abound with Christmas art and decorations from each year level. The admin staff totally topped the charts in their Christmas outfits. A big yay to the school families for an amazing effort to keep kids learning and connected this year. Next on the wish list are an early years centre and a reduced speed limit and electronic signs out the front. Have a wonderful camp, year 6s!

Following statement incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 24 November:

Country Fire Authority St Leonards-Indented Head station

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

On Monday the 23rd of November I had the pleasure to visit the St Leonards-Indented Head CFA to announce the state government’s commitment of $2.2 million to build a new state-of-the-art station.

This follows on from my earlier announcement in June of $800 000 to purchase the required land in Murradoc Road, paving the way for the new facility.

Currently the brigade operates out of a 38-year-old station that is in poor condition and no longer meets the requirement of the volunteers in carrying out their duties.

In contrast, the new facility when built will include first-class amenities for members, better disability access, modern appliance bays and training rooms.

This will ensure that the brigade is well equipped for now and well into the future, given the significant residential development in the area and the annual summer influx of holiday makers—a far cry from 1943, when this highly respected brigade was first formed.

That is nearly 80 years of dedicated service to the communities of St Leonards, Indented Head and surrounds.

I have been very pleased to have worked with, and on behalf of, the brigade in securing the build of their new station.

My congratulations and thanks go to each and every member of the St Leonards-Indented Head brigade for their service.

In particular, Niki Habibis, brigade captain of 16 years, and First Lieutenant Livy Symonds for their leadership and commitment to the project.

Also, Geoff McGill, District 7 assistant chief fire officer, and Ian Beswicke, local CFA commander, for their work and who were present on the day.

I now look forward to the opening of the new station in the not too distant future.

Bills

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020

Statement of compatibility

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (10:06): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020.

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 Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020.

In my opinion, the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, 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 will:

• denounce and prohibit change or suppression practices;

• create criminal offences which target:

o persons engaged in change or suppression practices which cause injury or serious injury;

o persons who advertise change or suppression practices; and

o persons who remove others from Victoria for the purposes of subjecting them to change or suppression practices which cause injury;

• establish a civil response scheme within the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) to:

o promote a greater understanding of, and compliance with, the prohibition of change or suppression practices;

o consider and resolve allegations of change or suppression practices that fall short of the criminal standard, through education and facilitation functions; and

o investigate serious or systemic change or suppression practices and enforce the outcomes of such an investigation.

The Bill also amends the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) to:

• update definitions of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ in line with current usage; and

• add ‘sex characteristics’ as a protected attribute from discrimination, to better protect intersex Victorians.

Human Rights Issues

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

The Bill engages several rights under the Charter.

The Bill promotes the right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8); the right to life (section 9); the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way (section 10); the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14); the right to culture (section 19), and the right of every child to be protected by society and the State (section 17).

The Bill limits the right to freedom of movement (section 12); the right to privacy and reputation (section 13); the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14); the right to freedom of expression (section 15); and the right to culture (section 19). As discussed below, these limitations are reasonable and justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

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

Section 8 of the Charter contains a collection of rights relating to recognition and equality before the law. Justice Bell, in Lifestyle Communities Ltd (No 3) (Anti-Discrimination) [2009] VCAT 1869, 277 noted the equality rights in section 8 are ‘the keystone in the protective arch of the Charter’, and the fundamental value underlying the right to equality is the ‘equal dignity of every person’. The value of personal dignity also underpins section 8(3) of the Charter. To treat somebody differently because of an attribute rather than on the basis of individual worth and merit can undermine personal autonomy and self-realisation.

Change or suppression practices impinge these rights and undermine the dignity of those subjected to them. They are harmful practices which seek to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed. Not only are these practices ineffective—they cause serious harm and have long-term negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of LGBT people.

The prohibitions on change or suppression practices established under the Bill promotes the right to recognition and equality before the law. The broad definition of change or suppression practices promotes this right by ensuring all Victorians subject to such practices have access to some form of recourse—whether civil or criminal—that is appropriate in the circumstances. The definition does not allow people to consent to change or suppression practices, which recognises the insidious nature of and inherent power imbalances involved in such practices, and ensures the most vulnerable are properly protected.

The creation of four criminal offences provides effective protection against harm and discrimination experienced on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The offences prohibit change or suppression practices in a way which responds to the severity of the harm caused and the circumstances of the conduct, and aims to deter such practices from occurring.

A large part of the Bill’s promotion of the right to recognition and equality before the law is through the establishment of a civil response scheme within VEOHRC, with its focus on educating the public about the ban on change or suppression practices and the harm they cause. This function is supported by VEOHRC’s facilitation function, which provides support that is appropriate in the circumstances. VEOHRC will also have own-motion investigation and related enforcement powers for serious or systemic change or suppression practices, which provides further protection.

Additionally, the Objects clause of the Bill promotes the right to recognition and equality before the law by affirming all people have characteristics of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and no combination of these characteristics constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency, disability or shortcoming. The Bill ensures Victorians are able to live their lives authentically with pride, and makes it clear an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity are not broken and do not need to be fixed.

The Bill better protects LGBTIQ+ Victorians from discrimination by amending the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) to update definitions of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ in line with current usage. The Bill also adds ‘sex characteristics’ as a protected attribute from discrimination, to better protect intersex Victorians.

Right to life (section 9)

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

LGBT people are at greater risk of discrimination and poor mental health. This risk is compounded for LGBT people who live in communities where change or suppression practices are conducted. Evidence from survivors of change or suppression practices and LGBTIQ+ support and advocacy organisations has demonstrated the ongoing harm and trauma caused by these practices, including long-term mental illness and suicide.

The Bill promotes the right to life by protecting LGBT Victorians from the significant harm caused by change or suppression practices. It does so particularly through the creation of four criminal offences—aimed at deterring these practices and the significant harm they cause—which target:

• persons engaged in change or suppression practices which cause injury or serious injury;

• persons who advertise change or suppression practices; and

• persons who remove others from Victoria for the purposes of subjecting them to change or suppression practices which cause injury.

Right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 10)

The Charter provides a person must not be subjected to torture or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. This right is primarily a negative obligation for public officials to refrain from torture. However, it includes some positive elements which require government to take steps to prevent the occurrence of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment makes clear the threshold of severity for an act to amount to torture is high and requires deliberate ill treatment causing severe physical or mental pain or suffering. Conduct amounting to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ is different. International jurisprudence has established it is directed at less severe forms of ill treatment than acts amounting to torture, such as degrading treatment that humiliates or debases a person. There is no specific requirement severe pain must be inflicted and it is not necessary for the harm to be intentional.

Only the most serious forms of change or suppression practices are likely to be torture, such as electroshock therapy or forced isolation. But many change or suppression practices could be considered cruel, inhuman and degrading. The premise of these practices is that LGBT people are broken and can, or need to be, fixed. Such treatment shows a lack of respect for a person and diminishes a person’s dignity. Survivors of change or suppression practices have reported it was the insidious and unrelenting ‘ex-gay’ messaging that ate away at their wellbeing and self-worth.

By denouncing and prohibiting such practices, and protecting LGBT Victorians from change or suppression practices, the Bill promotes section 10 of the Charter. The definition of change or suppression practices, the criminal offences, and the civil response scheme, together operate to prevent the occurrence of these degrading practices.

The Objects clause of the Bill affirms all people have characteristics of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and no combination of these characteristics constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency, disability or shortcoming. The Bill ensures Victorians are able to live their lives authentically with pride, and makes it clear an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity are not broken and do not need to be fixed.

Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14) and the right to culture (section 19)

Section 14 protects freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. The right protects the freedom to hold positions of conscience and religious and other beliefs, and the right to externally demonstrate a religion or belief, whether individually or collectively, whether in private or public, and whether through a range of acts including worship, observance, practice and teaching.

The right to culture in section 19 is based on Article 27 of the ICCPR. This right ensures individuals, in community with others that share their background, can enjoy their culture, declare and practise their religion and use their language. It protects all people with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background.

While the Bill may limit these rights for some people (as discussed below), for others their rights to freedom of religion and belief, and to culture, will be better protected. Change or suppression practices seek to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and where undertaken in a religious or cultural context impinge section 14 and/or 19 by inhibiting LGBTIQ people’s ability to freely and safely exercise their right to religion and belief and/or right to culture, often due to feelings of guilt, shame and fear of being ostracised from their community. The Health Complaints Commissioner (HCC) highlighted the severity of these harms, including long-term psychological harm and distress. The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The Bill promotes sections 14 and 19 by denouncing and prohibiting change or suppression practices and preventing the severe harm they cause through a broad definition of such practices (Clause 5), the creation of criminal offences (Clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13), and the establishment of a civil response scheme (Part 3), the Bill promotes the rights to freedom of religion and belief, and to culture.

In particular, the structure of the civil response scheme ensures the Bill will effectively prevent and respond to change or suppression practices in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the person affected and proportionate to the harms caused. The scheme is designed to educate the public about the ban on change or suppression practices and the harm these practices cause, and respond to reports about such practices by anyone. This allows someone subjected to change or suppression practices to make a report to VEOHRC so the harm caused can be acknowledged by their community, without the survivor being separated from their community as a result. These functions are supported by VEOHRC’s facilitation function, which provides support that is appropriate in the circumstances. VEOHRC will also have own-motion investigation and related enforcement powers for serious or systemic change or suppression practices, which provides further protection.

Right of every child to be protected by society and the State (section 17)

The Charter provides that families are a fundamental group unit of society and are entitled to be protected by society and the State; and that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by reason of being a child.

The Bill promotes section 17 in the same way as it promotes sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter: by denouncing and prohibiting change or suppression practices through a broad definition of such practices, criminal offences, and a civil response scheme.

The definition of change or suppression practices captures anyone who engages in such practices and protects anyone who is subjected to them. It does not allow people to consent to change or suppression practices, which recognises the insidious nature and inherent power imbalances of these practices, and ensures the most vulnerable—including children—are properly protected.

Right to freedom of movement (section 12)

The Bill limits section 12 of the Charter, the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it, by creating a criminal offence which prohibits a person from taking another person from Victoria with the intention that person would be subjected to a change or suppression practice which causes injury (Clause 12) (“the removal offence”). However, this limitation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The nature of the right

The right to freedom of movement provides that every person within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it. The right imposes on public authorities both a negative duty to not interfere with a person’s freedom of movement and a positive duty to ensure a person’s freedom of movement is not unduly restricted by other persons. Any restrictions on the right to enter and leave Victoria which are not proportionate to a legitimate government aim are likely to be a breach the Charter.

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

The purpose of the removal offence is to prevent the serious harm caused by change or suppression practices, by prohibiting a person taking someone to another jurisdiction for the purpose of subjecting them to a change or suppression practice. Research conducted by the Health Complaints Commissioner (HCC) highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices, including long-term psychological harm and distress. The Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC), La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The offence would stop people attempting to engage in these practices in another jurisdiction to circumvent Victorian law.

The nature and extent of the limitation

The right to freedom of movement is limited in very specific circumstances by the removal offence. The offence provides that a person (A) commits an offence if:

• A takes another person (B) from Victoria, or arranges for B to be taken from Victoria; and

• A intends that a change or suppression practice, or change or suppression practices, will be engaged in in relation to B outside Victoria (whether by A or another person); and

• a change or suppression practice, or change or suppression practices, are engaged in in relation to B outside Victoria;

• the change or suppression practice, or any one or more of the change or suppression practices, causes injury to B; and

• A is negligent as to whether the change or suppression practice, or any of the change or suppression practices, will cause injury to B.

The ‘taking’ is criminalised whether or not the other person consented to travel across state borders or internationally. It is the role of the offender causing or facilitating that travel that is targeted and their negligence as to whether injury would result.

The criminal offence imposes a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. This is a lower penalty than the serious injury and injury offences because the conduct of the offender is different. Unlike those offences, the offender does not cause the injury, they must only be negligent as to whether an injury would be caused as a result of the change or suppression practice.

The offence does not capture conduct that is supportive or affirming of the individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation, such as medical and psychological care which is part of gender transition or other legitimate therapies.

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Limiting the right to freedom of movement where that movement involves a change or suppression practice that causes injury is necessary to reduce the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Allowing change or suppression practices that cause injury to be undertaken in relation to Victorians who are removed from the jurisdiction would mean that the harm caused by such practices was able to continue.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve

The offence targets very specific conduct and circumstances and requires injury to be proven. The specificity of the purpose and the drafting of the offence means there are unlikely to be less restrictive means reasonably available to prevent a person taking another person from Victoria for the purpose of subjecting them to a change or suppression practice.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

The Bill limits the right of a person to privacy, by enabling VEOHRC to, in respect of change or suppression practices which are serious or systemic:

• compel production of information or documents; and

• compel attendance.

It also enables VEOHRC to require a person to produce documents in relation to proceedings for the advertising offence.

However, this limitation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The nature of the right

The right to privacy protects individuals form unlawful or arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence. The right is broad and bound up with conceptions of personal autonomy and human dignity. It encompasses the idea individuals should have an area of autonomous development, interaction and liberty—a ‘private sphere’ free from government intervention and from excessive unsolicited intervention by other individuals. An interference with privacy can be permissible if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances. Any limitation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which interferences with privacy may be permitted.

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

Limiting the right to privacy in certain circumstances where that privacy involves hiding information about change or suppression practice is necessary for VEOHRC to effectively investigate such practices and fulfil its purpose of preventing the serious harm caused by change or suppression practices and helping those subjected to them. Research conducted by the HCC highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices, including long-term psychological harm and distress. The HRLC, La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The nature and extent of the limitation

VEOHRC is only able to compel production of information or documents and to compel attendance if it believes the change or suppression practices are serious or systemic. This threshold means investigation and related enforcement powers will only be used in relation to more serious change or suppression practices, practices that are enduring, or practices which affect or have the potential to affect multiple people. This also means the right to privacy is limited in a manner proportionate to the potential to cause harm.

The specificity of the circumstances in which interferences with privacy may be permitted and other limitations on these powers mean, in my opinion, any limitation on the right to privacy is reasonable and justified.

VEOHRC can only compel information or documents if it reasonable believes that:

• a person is in possession of information or a document that is relevant to the investigation; and

• the information or document is necessary for the conduct of the investigation.

In relation to its power to compel attendance, VEOHRC can only do so it if reasonably believes that:

• a person has information that is relevant to an investigation; and

• the information is necessary for the conduct of the investigation.

In addition, a person cannot be compelled to provide documents or give evidence that they could not be compelled to give in a proceeding before a court, including information that is self-incriminating. The risk to a person’s reputation is limited, given VEOHRC can only disclose information in limited circumstances.

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Limiting the right to privacy in certain circumstances where that privacy involves hiding information about change or suppression practice is necessary for VEOHRC to effectively investigate such practices and achieve its purpose of helping victims and reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Allowing information about serious or system practices to remain hidden as part of the enjoyment of the right to privacy would mean that the harm caused by such practices was able to continue.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve

Having a higher threshold for the use of investigation powers and related enforcement powers, or no such powers at all, would make VEOHRC much less effective at investigating and responding to change or suppression practices, and would therefore fail to achieve the purpose of the Bill. Enforcement powers have not been provided to VEOHRC in relation to all change or suppression practices, only those that are serious or systemic.

Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14)

The Bill limits section 14 of the Charter, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, by prohibiting change or suppression practices through a broad definition of such practices, criminal offences, and a civil response scheme. This is because in some circumstances change or suppression practices are expressions and/or demonstrations of religion and belief. However, this limitation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The nature of the right

Section 14 protects freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. It includes the right to externally demonstrate a religion or belief, whether individually or collectively, whether in private or public, and whether through a range of acts including worship, observance, practice and teaching.

While the right to have or adopt a religion or belief is a matter of individual thought, and considered to be absolute, the right to demonstrate religion or belief impacts others and is therefore subject to reasonable limitation.

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

Change or suppression practices are harmful practices that seek to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed. Not only are these practices ineffective—they cause serious harm and have long-term negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, including psychological harm and distress, as shown in research conducted by the HCC. The HRLC, La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

While not exclusively religious in nature, these practices can be expressions of religious belief, often stressing that with faith and effort a person could be free of homosexuality and make a choice to be ‘healed’ or live celibate lives, in line with religious traditions. Contemporary change or suppression practices can include counselling or psychology; formal behaviour-change programs; residential camps; support groups; and religious-based approaches (prayer-based, deliverance and exorcisms). Evidence suggests a range of health and non-health providers engage in these practices in Victoria.

The purpose of prohibiting change or suppression practices, and therefore in some cases limiting freedom of religion and belief, is to respond to the harm these practices cause and provide protection for LGBT Victorians.

LGBT people are at greater risk of discrimination and poor mental health. This risk is compounded for LGBT people who live in communities where change or suppression practices are conducted. Evidence from survivors of change or suppression and LGBTIQ+ support and advocacy organisations during consultations revealed the ongoing harm and trauma caused by these practices, including long-term mental illness and suicide.

The nature and extent of the limitation

In limiting section 14 the Charter, the Bill seeks to achieve the important and legitimate objective of preventing the serious harms caused by change or suppression practices to LGBT Victorians. It limits this right in a way that is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieve this objective.

The definition of change or suppression practices requires conduct to be directed at an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity for the purpose of changing or suppressing that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or inducing that person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. This definition captures conduct which targets the victim, and not general conduct. The Bill would only capture such pastoral conversations and limit freedom expression in circumstances where the purpose of the conversation or advice given was to change or suppress the person’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

The Bill establishes a civil response scheme which enables reports to be made in relation to change or suppression practices. The scheme will be focused on educative and facilitative functions, with own-motion investigation and related enforcement powers only available for serious or systemic change or suppression practices. VEOHRC will be able to:

• develop/provide community education on change or suppression practices; and

• receive and respond to reports about change or suppression practices from any person.

Participation in facilitation and education is voluntary.

The criminal offences (other than the advertising offence) target forms of conduct that result in physical or mental injury. That the injury was caused by the change or suppression practice would need to be proved to the usual criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the offences respond to the severity of the harm caused by change or suppression practices, they are constructed in recognition of the fact it would not be appropriate for the offences to capture every individual or organisation that engages in change or suppression practices, as this would be improperly broad.

The Bill also includes a provision requiring an independent review to be undertaken of the operation and effectiveness of the Bill, to commence at the end of two years from the commencement of the Bill. This is a safeguard and provides an opportunity to consider issues relating to the limitation of religious and cultural freedoms.

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Limiting the right to freedom of religion and belief where religious practices or the demonstration of religious belief involves change or suppression practice is necessary for the criminal offences and civil scheme to achieve their purpose of reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Allowing these practices to occur as part of the enjoyment of freedom of religion and belief would mean that harm caused by such practices was able to continue.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve

The HCC Report highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices and recommended the introduction of legislation which clearly and unequivocally denounces change or suppression practices and prohibits such practices from occurring in Victoria was necessary to respond to this harm. As part of the process of developing the criminal offences and civil scheme the government consulted widely to determine the most effective way to achieve the purpose of reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices and ensure that a less restrictive means of reducing harm was not available. The criminal offences and civil scheme have been developed on the basis of this consultation, and no less restrictive means was reasonably available to effectively reduce the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The broad definition is necessary in order to capture the breadth of harmful conduct which can constitute a change or suppression practice and to prevent minor changes in conduct circumventing the ban. During consultation we heard that the conduct that constitutes a change or suppression practice is often informal and can be very varied. We also heard that where narrow bans had been implemented those engaging in change or suppression practices had shifted their conduct to avoid illegality while continuing to engage in harmful practices the purpose of which was to change or suppress another’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although broad, the definition has been carefully designed to exclude conduct that is not directed at an individual, to reduce its impact on religious practices such as sermons. It also requires conduct be engaged in for the purpose of changing or suppression a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity (or inducing a person to change or suppress) to limit impact on general discussions of religious beliefs around sexual orientation or gender identity that aim to explain these beliefs and not change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The breadth of the definition is also balanced by the careful design of the criminal and civil aspects of the ban. The structure of the civil response scheme ensures it can effectively prevent and respond to change or suppression practices in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the person affected and proportionate to the harms caused. For instance, that a report about change or suppression practices can be made by anyone is considered to be the least rights restrictive means to achieve the objective, as limiting the prohibition to instances where the practice was non-consensual would not prevent the harm caused by change or suppression practices. Evidence indicates that such practices are undertaken in a range of informal and formal contexts and that consent may be obtained through misleading claims or indoctrination. People who are subject to these practices are generally not made aware of the harm these practices can cause.

Right to freedom of expression (section 15)

The Bill limits section 15 of the Charter, the right to freedom of expression, by prohibiting change or suppression practices through a broad definition of such practices, criminal offences, and a civil response scheme. This is because change or suppression practices are often expressions of the idea that LGBT people are broken and can be fixed. However, this limitation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The nature of the right

The right to freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of borders, whether orally, in writing or in print, by way of art, or in another way. This freedom may be restricted where it is necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

As outlined in relation to the right to freedom of religion and belief, change or suppression practices are harmful practices that seek to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed. Not only are these practices ineffective—they cause serious harm and have long-term negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of LGBT people. Research conducted by the HCC highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices, including long-term psychological harm and distress. The HRLC, La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The purpose of prohibiting change or suppression practices, and therefore in some cases limiting freedom of expression, is to respond to the harm these practices cause and provide protection for LGBT Victorians. The criminal offence for advertising a change or suppression practice—a more direct limit on freedom of expression—has been created for the same purpose.

LGBT people are at greater risk of discrimination and poor mental health. Evidence from survivors of change or suppression and LGBTIQ+ support and advocacy organisations during consultations revealed the ongoing harm and trauma caused by these practices, including long-term mental illness and suicide.

The nature and extent of the limitation

In limiting section 15 of the Charter, by restricting speech that constitutes change or suppression practices, the Bill seeks to achieve the important and legitimate objective of preventing the serious harms caused by change or suppression practices to LGBT Victorians. The Bill prohibits change or suppression practices and limits the right to freedom of expression in a way that is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieve this objective.

As previously outlined, the definition of change or suppression practices requires conduct to be directed at an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity that seeks to change or suppress that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or to induce that person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. This definition captures conduct which targets the victim, and not general conduct. The Bill will only limit freedom expression in circumstances where the expression was directed at a person for the purpose of changing or suppressing the person’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

The breadth of the definition is also balanced by the careful design of the criminal and civil aspects of the ban. The offence of advertising a change or suppression practice is intended to ensure such practices are not propagated and the harm these practices cause is not spread. The offence is proportionate to this aim for several reasons. It requires the advertisement be reasonably understood as indicating a person intends to engage in change or suppression practices. It will not be an offence to advertise a change or suppression practice for the purpose of warning others of the potential for harm. Additionally, there is a defence to the offence for taking reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence to prevent publication or display. This offence also has a lower penalty than the other offences to reflect that injury does not have to demonstrated.

The Bill includes a provision requiring an independent review to be undertaken of the operation and effectiveness of the Bill, to commence at the end of two years from the commencement of the Bill. This provides an opportunity to consider issues relating to the limitation of freedom of expression.

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Limiting the right to freedom of expression where that expression involves change or suppression practice is necessary for the criminal offences and civil scheme to achieve their purpose of reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Allowing these practices to occur as part of the enjoyment of freedom of expression would mean the harm caused by such practices was able to continue.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve

The HCC Report highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices and recommended the introduction of legislation which clearly and unequivocally denounces change or suppression practices and prohibits such practices from occurring in Victoria was necessary to respond to this harm.

The broad definition is necessary in order to capture the breadth of harmful conduct which can constitute a change or suppression practice and to prevent minor changes in conduct circumventing the ban. Conduct which constitutes a change or suppression practice is often informal and can be very varied. In some jurisdictions where narrow bans have been implemented, there have been suggestions those engaging in change or suppression practices had shifted their conduct to avoid illegality while continuing to engage in harmful practices the purpose of which was to change or suppress another’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although broad, the definition has been carefully designed to exclude conduct that is not directed at an individual to reduce its impact on general public conduct such as opinion pieces and lectures. It also requires conduct be engaged in for the purpose of changing or suppression a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity (or inducing a person to change or suppress) in order to limit impact on general discussions of opinions around sexual orientation or gender identity that aim to explain an opinion and not change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The breadth of the definition is also balanced by the careful design of the criminal and civil aspects of the ban. As previously outlined, the civil response scheme’s focus on developing and providing community education on change or suppression practices, and receiving and responding to reports about change or suppression practices, is intended to be the least rights restrictive means of responding to such practices. It ensures the Commission can effectively prevent and respond to change or suppression practices in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the person affected and proportionate to the harms caused.

Right to culture (section 19)

The Bill limits section 19 of the Charter, the right culture, by prohibiting change or suppression practices through a broad definition of such practices, criminal offences, and a civil response scheme. This is because in some circumstances change or suppression practices are practices associated with particular cultural or religious backgrounds. However, this limitation is reasonable and justified in the circumstances.

The nature of the right

The right to culture is based on Article 27 of the ICCPR. This right ensures individuals, in community with others that share their background, can enjoy their culture, declare and practise their religion and use their language. It protects all people with a particular cultural, religious, racial or linguistic background.

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

The purpose of the criminal offences (clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13) and civil scheme (Part 3) is to reduce the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Research conducted by the HCC highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices, including long-term psychological harm and distress. The HRLC, La Trobe University and Gay & Lesbian Health Vic released a report in October 2018 which also highlighted the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The nature and extent of the limitation

The criminal offences (clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13) and civil scheme (Part 3) may limit the right to culture where the enjoyment of culture, practise of religion or use of language involves a change or suppression practice.

All of these provisions are based on the definition of change or suppression practices. While this definition is broad it has been purposefully designed to limit its impact on the right to culture. In particular, the definition requires that a change or suppression practices must be directed at an individual. This is intended to ensure the definition only captures conduct which targets the victim, and not general conduct (e.g. sermons).

Where conduct meets the definition of change or suppression practices it will be subject to the civil scheme. This scheme has also been designed in a way which limits the impacts on the right to culture. A person accused of a change or suppression practices must consent to participate in the facilitation processes available under the civil scheme unless they are engaged in serious or systemic change or suppression practices.

Additionally, the criminal offences in clauses 10, 11, and 12 only apply to change or suppression practices which cause serious injury or injury respectively.

Together these elements ensure that the enjoyment of the right to culture is not substantially restricted.

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

Limiting the right to culture where the enjoyment of culture, practise of religion or use of language involves a change or suppression practice is necessary in order for the criminal offences and civil scheme to achieve their purpose of reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices in the Victorian community. Allowing change or suppression practices that occur as part of the enjoyment of culture, practise of religious, or use of language would mean the harm caused by such practices was able to continue.

Any less restrictive means reasonably available to achieve the purpose that the limitation seeks to achieve

The HCC Report highlighted the severity of harms occasioned through change or suppression practices and recommended the introduction of legislation which clearly and unequivocally denounces change or suppression practices and prohibits such practices from occurring in Victoria was necessary to respond to this harm. As part of the process of developing the criminal offences and civil scheme the government consulted widely to determine the most effective way to achieve the purpose of reducing the harm caused by change or suppression practices and ensure that a less restrictive means of reducing harm was not available. The criminal offences and civil scheme have been developed on the basis of this consultation and no less restrictive means was reasonably available to effectively reduce the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The broad definition is necessary in order to capture the breadth of harmful conduct which can constitute a change or suppression practice and to prevent minor changes in conduct circumventing the ban. During consultation we heard that the conduct that constitutes a change or suppression practice is often informal and can be very varied. We also heard that where narrow bans had been implemented those engaging in change or suppression practices had shifted their conduct to avoid illegality while continuing to engage in harmful practices the purpose of which was to change or suppress another’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Although broad the definition has been carefully designed to exclude conduct that is not directed at an individual to reduce its impact on general public conduct such as opinion pieces and lectures. It also requires conduct be engaged in for the purpose of changing or suppression a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity (or inducing a person to change or suppress) in order to limit impact on general discussions of opinions around sexual orientation or gender identity that aim to explain an opinion and not change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The breadth of the definition is also balanced by the careful design of the criminal and civil aspects of the ban. As previously outlined, the civil response scheme’s focus on developing and providing community education on change or suppression practices, and receiving and responding to reports about change or suppression practices, is intended to be the least rights restrictive means of responding to such practices. It ensures the Commission can effectively prevent and respond to change or suppression practices in a way that is appropriate to the needs of the person affected and proportionate to the harms caused.

As discussed in this Statement of Compatibility, all of the limitations in the Bill are reasonable and justified.

Hon Jill Hennessy MP

Attorney-General

Second reading

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (10:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Incorporated speech as follows:

This Bill delivers on a Victorian Government commitment to denounce and prohibit harmful LGBT conversion practices.

The Bill refers to LGBT conversion practices as “change or suppression practices”. These are practices which have no basis in medicine; there is no evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed or suppressed. Not only are change or suppression practices ineffective, they are deeply harmful and can cause long-term mental health issues and, in the most tragic of cases, suicide. A disproportionate number of LGBT people experience poor mental health outcomes and suicidality. According to the National LGBTI Health Alliance, for example, LGBT young people are five times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers. Transgender people are 11 times more likely to attempt suicide, and 48 per cent of transgender and gender diverse people attempt suicide in their lifetime (compared with 3.2 per cent of the general population).

Change or suppression practices often involve the subtle and recurrent messaging that with faith and effort a person can change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. However, change or suppression practices are not only religious or faith based and can take other forms, including counselling, psychotherapy and support groups. In all cases however, these practices are based on a flawed ideology or pseudoscience that a person can be ‘broken’ due to their sexuality or gender identity. This could not be further from the truth.

The Bill recognises change or suppression practices as false, deceptive and seriously harmful acts, and aims to eliminate change or suppression practices in Victoria.

The Bill aims to clearly communicate that change or suppression practices are not tolerated or supported by the Victorian community in any form.

The Bill affirms all people have characteristics of sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and no combination of these characteristics constitutes a disorder, disease, illness, deficiency, disability or shortcoming.

The Bill ensures Victorians are able to live their lives authentically with pride, and makes it clear an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity are not broken and do not need to be fixed.

Definition of change or suppression practices

The prohibition will be based on a broad definition of change or suppression practices. The term “change or suppression practices” is used—rather than other terms such as “conversion therapy”—in acknowledgement of the religious significance of the term “conversion”, and in acknowledgement that the term “conversion therapy” inappropriately legitimises these practices by suggesting they have a basis in medicine.

It is not an oversight that the term “conversion” is in the title of the Bill. It has been included because the phrase “change or suppression practices” alone would not describe the nature of the Bill to someone who was not already familiar with it. Although the Bill avoids using “conversion” for the reasons mentioned—and the Bill’s language is carefully drafted in response to stakeholder feedback—“conversion practice” and “conversion therapy” are concepts people generally understand. Including “conversion” in the title of the Bill contextualises the Bill and the new term of “change or suppression practice”.

The definition of change or suppression practice has three elements:

• First, the conduct must be directed at an individual. This ensures that conduct generally directed—such as sermons expressing a general statement of belief—is not captured. However, such conduct may be considered as part of the Legislative Assembly’s ongoing inquiry into anti-vilification protections.

• Second, the conduct must be “on the basis” of the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

• Third, the purpose of the person engaging in the conduct must be to change or induce another person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This definition captures a range of conduct, including:

• A counsellor recommending to a patient that they attend group therapy sessions which support people to overcome same sex attraction;

• A parent sending their child to an overseas conversion therapy camp to “cure” them of being gay;

• A person going to a religious leader seeking advice on their feelings of same-sex attraction, and the religious leader telling them they are broken and should live a celibate life for the purpose of changing or suppressing their same-sex attraction.

While some religious practices may meet the definition of change or suppression practice in certain circumstances, the definition had been carefully crafted, and is not designed to capture all religious practices or teachings or to prevent people seeking religious counsel. For example, the definition of a change or suppression practice would not capture conduct where, for example, a person goes to a religious leader seeking advice on their feelings of same-sex attraction, and the religious leader only informs this person that they consider such feelings to be contrary to the teachings of their faith, and does so only to convey their interpretation of those teachings and not to change or suppress the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

Similarly, the definition would not capture conduct where, for example, a person confides in a religious leader that they feel their gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth, and the religious leader only invites this person to attend a weekly prayer group for the purpose of better understanding their feelings and to support the person’s exploration of their feelings.

In addition, change or suppression practices would only attract criminal penalties where injury results from the practice and this is able to be proven.

The definition does not allow an adult to consent to change or suppression practices. This is based on feedback from survivors, who told the government that allowing an adult to consent to a change or suppression practice fails to acknowledge the insidious and coercive nature of such practices.

Importantly, change or suppression practices do not include supportive medical and psychological treatment that is in line with professional standards, including support for a person who is seeking to affirm their gender identity by undergoing gender transition. However, in certain circumstances, a failure of a health professional to refer a person undergoing gender transition to necessary supportive medical or psychological treatment may be captured by both the criminal offences and civil scheme in this Bill.

Definitions in the EO Act

The Bill relies on the definitions of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). These definitions have not been updated since 2010.

In the last decade, our collective understanding and awareness of gender identity and sexual orientation has evolved. Therefore, the Bill will amend section 4 of the EO Act to update outdated definitions of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” in line with current usage:

• “gender identity” means a person’s gender-related identity, which may or may not correspond with their designated sex at birth, including the personal sense of the body (whether this involves medical intervention or not) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech, mannerisms, names and personal preferences;

• “sexual orientation” means a person’s emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, or intimate or sexual relations with, persons of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.

The Bill will also add a definition of ‘sex characteristics’ in section 4 of the EO Act:

• “sex characteristics” means a person’s physical features relating to sex, including genitalia and other sexual and reproductive parts of a person’s anatomy, chromosomes, genes, hormones and secondary physical features that emerge as a result of puberty.

This will better protect intersex Victorians from discrimination. Currently, there is no express protection for intersex Victorians in the EO Act, and the protection offered is inappropriate because it falls under the current definition of “gender identity”. However, intersex status is not the same as gender identity. Therefore, intersex protections from discrimination need to be separated from our understanding of “gender identity”. This distinction also clarifies that intersex change or suppression practices are not within the scope of this Bill. Intersex change or suppression practices often involve medical interventions and this important issue is being considered separately to this legislation by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Other reforms

The Bill will also amend the:

• Family Violence Protection Act 2008 to include an example of a practice which satisfies both the definition of a change or suppression practice and the definition of family violence. For example:

o An adult child repeatedly denigrating an elderly parent’s sexual orientation, including by telling them it is wrong to be same sex attracted and that they should change or they will no longer support them.

• Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010 to include an example of a practice that meets both the definition of a change or suppression practice and harassment. For example:

o A repeatedly leaves pamphlets in B’s mailbox that state that it is wrong to gender transition and that everyone’s gender expression should match the sex they were assigned at birth.

This clarifies that survivors of change or suppression practices may be able to make use of family violence intervention orders, family violence safety notices, and personal safety intervention orders. These orders protect a person from physical or mental harm caused by someone else. A breach of these orders is a criminal offence.

Overview of the enforcement of the prohibition

The prohibition of change or suppression practices will be enforced by a scheme that has been shaped by the views of survivors of this type of harm and will continue to be shaped by survivors during implementation.

The scheme—the broad definition of change or suppression practices, the civil response scheme and the criminal offences—is designed to escalate penalties in response to the harm caused by change or suppression practices.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) will be responsible for the civil response scheme. VEOHRC’s focus will be on providing and developing educative materials about change or suppression practices and the harm they cause. It will be empowered to undertake investigations where there is evidence of serious or systemic practices and will have related enforcement powers which if not complied with can result in civil penalties.

Criminal offences will be created for the most serious conduct, including:

• criminal offences that ensure practices which cause injury or serious injury are treated the same way in criminal law as other conduct that causes injury or serious injury;

• an offence for taking or arranging to take someone from Victoria for the purpose of subjecting them to a change or suppression practice which causes injury; and

• a strict-liability offence for advertising change or suppression practices.

I will now explain the enforcement scheme in greater detail, starting with the civil scheme as this will be the most common response to change or suppression practices.

Survivor led civil response scheme

The civil response scheme has been designed to be trauma-informed and survivor-led, to accommodate the unique circumstances of each experience. Survivors will decide on what the response to their report will be, or if they wish to “report and leave”.

The civil response scheme will be focused on educative and facilitative functions, with investigation and enforcement powers available for serious or systemic practices. The Bill will establish the scheme within VEOHRC, but with a separate and distinct legislative basis and functions. The scheme aligns with and complements the existing powers and functions of VEOHRC.

VEOHRC will be able to:

• provide community education around change or suppression practices;

• receive reports about change or suppression practices from any person (that is, the person affected, someone on their behalf, or a third party);

• determine an appropriate response to the report on the basis of the information provided and the wishes of the person affected where they are involved in the making of the report; and

• offer education to individuals or organisations engaged in change or suppression practices.

VEOHRC will always be required to:

• focus on ensuring survivors receive the required support by directing them to appropriate support services;

• set up facilitation processes which meet the needs of the individual survivor; and

• support survivors who have been the victims of a criminal offence to report such conduct to police if the survivor wishes to do so.

Depending on the alleged conduct and circumstances, and the wishes of the survivor, VEOHRC would be able to respond by supporting and facilitating survivor led processes, including:

• helping to facilitate a resolution between the survivor and other party (for example, by speaking with the other party on behalf of the survivor about the harm the survivor experienced and receiving assurances that the other party will stop conducting change or suppression practices);

• assisting the other party to alter practices in order to comply with the prohibition through education; and

• referring survivors to appropriate support services or to more appropriate bodies (for example, mental health or housing support, or where the alleged conduct meets the standard for a criminal offence).

For each of these potential responses, VEOHRC will work closely with the survivor and other party, and act on the basis of the views of the survivor about the preferred response. Facilitation processes are voluntary and in confidence and outcomes that impact both parties must be agreed by both sides. Such outcomes may include an agreement to change or stop behaviour (verbal or written, private or public), or financial compensation.

These functions will be supported by powers to enable VEOHRC to conduct own-motion investigations (with related enforcement powers) for change or suppression which are “serious or systemic” in nature. This power would be triggered in circumstances where a report to VEOHRC:

• raises an issue that is serious in nature or indicates practices which are systemic or persisting;

• indicates a possible contravention of the prohibition; and

• relates to a class or group of persons.

In these circumstances, VEOHRC will be able to compel witnesses and the provision of documents, and be able to accept enforceable undertakings and issue compliance notices as a result of the outcomes of an investigation.

While failure to comply with a compliance notice is not an automatic offence, VEOHRC will be able to enforce compliance via VCAT and the courts. If a person or organisation fails to comply with a VCAT order, this will be an offence and liable to criminal penalties.

Criminal offences

The Bill will create four criminal offences, which prohibit a person from:

• intentionally engaging in a change or suppression practice where that conduct causes injury to another person;

• intentionally engaging in a change or suppression practice where that conduct causes serious injury to another person;

• taking another person from Victoria with the intention that person would be subject to a change or suppression practice where that practice causes injury; and

• advertising a change or suppression practice.

The criminal offences, other than the advertising offence, require an injury or serious injury to have been suffered, and for the offender to have been negligent as to causing injury or serious injury. The offences are targeted at those forms of conduct that result in physical or mental injury.

These new criminal offences reflect the input received from survivors and LGBTIQ+ support and advocacy organisations that change or suppression practices result in serious physical and mental harms, including long-term mental illness and suicide. It is important the criminal offences treat change or suppression practices equally seriously to other conduct that causes injury or serious injury. Consequently, the criminal offences map on to existing offences in the Crimes Act in terms of the significant criminal penalties available. It is also expected these criminal offences will play an educative role for the general public about the seriousness of change or suppression practices and act as a deterrence.

The criminal offences will rely on the definitions of injury and serious injury in the Crimes Act. The elements of the offence, including the severity of the injury and the fact it was caused by the change or suppression practice, would need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. This balances the breadth of the definition, which protects all Victorians and prohibits any person from conducting change or suppression practices, with the need to respect the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. While the Bill acknowledges all practices are harmful, it would not be appropriate for the criminal offences to be so broad as to capture every person that engages in change or suppression practices. This may result in a criminal penalty being imposed where an individual lacks sufficient moral culpability. Instead, the criminal offences are targeted at those practices which cause injury or serious injury.

The penalties align with the similar offences for causing injury and serious injury in the Crimes Act 1958 (Crimes Act) as follows:

• serious physical or mental injury to another—with a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; or

• physical or mental injury to another—with a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment.

The Bill will also create a new criminal offence prohibiting a person from taking another from Victoria with the intention that person would be subjected to a change or suppression practice where that practice causes injury.

This offence will have a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment. This is a lower penalty than the serious injury and injury offences because the conduct of the offender is different. Unlike those offences, the offender does not cause the injury, they must only be negligent as to whether an injury would be caused as a result of the change or suppression practices.

The Bill also creates a strict liability offence of advertising change or suppression practices. It will not be necessary to demonstrate injury for this offence and as such it will attract a 60 penalty unit fine and no imprisonment.

All the offences will apply also to body corporates.

Independent review of the Bill

The Bill will provide for an independent review of its effectiveness two years after the ban on change or suppression practices commences. This will enable the impacts of the ban to be assessed and for potential improvements to the legislation to be made.

The review will be conducted by an independent expert and will consider whether broader powers and a redress scheme would improve the effectiveness of the new law. The review will consider whether, among other things:

• the criminal offences are effective;

• the existing civil scheme is effective;

• broader investigation or enforcement powers are required; and

• a redress scheme should be developed.

Commencement

The Bill will commence one year after Royal Assent unless proclaimed early. This date is to allow adequate time to establish the civil scheme and ensure funding is in place.

I wish to thank all of the stakeholders who engaged with the development of this Bill. In particular, I wish to extend a sincere thank you to those survivors who took the time to share their stories and lived experiences, and acknowledge how difficult that must have been. Your contributions have shaped and strengthened this landmark legislation. Future engagement will be undertaken with survivors to inform implementation of this reform, and I wish to thank everyone in advance who will contribute to the implementation process.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr WELLS (Rowville) (10:07): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 10 December.

Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Bill 2020

Statement of compatibility

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (10:08): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Bill 2020.

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Bill 2020 (the Bill).

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

Overview of the Bill

The Bill amends the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (WIRC Act) and makes corresponding and consequential amendments to the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (AC Act) to introduce a provisional payments scheme that provides workers who suffer a work-related mental health injury and lodge a workers’ compensation claim with access to payments for reasonable medical and like expenses, whilst their claim is being determined, and provides workers whose claim is rejected with access to payments for reasonable medical and like expenses for their mental injury for up to 13 weeks.

The Bill also makes consequential amendments to several Acts that provide for personal injury compensation to certain volunteer cohorts including the Police Assistance Compensation Act 1968, the Emergency Management Act 1986, the Juries Act 2000, the Victoria State Emergency Services 2005, and the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

Human rights issues

In my opinion, the human rights under the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:

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

- the right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

- the right to property (section 20), and

- the right to a fair hearing (section 24).

For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter. To the extent that any human rights are limited by the Bill, any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter.

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

Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is equal before the law, is entitled to the equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. This means that laws, policies and programs should not be discriminatory, and also that public authorities should not apply or enforce laws, policies and programs in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. However, courts recognise that ensuring that all people have the equal protection of the law may require that certain groups are treated differently.

‘Discrimination’ for the purposes of the equality right means discrimination within the meaning of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act). The EO Act defines discrimination in section 7 to include direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute, including, relevantly, age, gender identity and sex, disability, parental status or status as a carer, and race. ‘Disability’ is defined in the EO Act to include disabilities of a physical, mental and psychological nature.

It is possible that new sections 75A and 263B of the WIRC Act (introduced by clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill, respectively), new section 99AG of the AC Act (introduced by clause 35 of the Bill), and equivalent amendments made to the other Acts which provide for personal injury compensation for volunteers, may have the effect of directly discriminating in favour of injured workers or volunteers who lodge a mental injury claim on the basis of a protected attribute under the EO Act (in this case, a disability of a mental or psychological nature). To the extent that these clauses involve discrimination, they will engage the right in section 8 of the Charter.

However, section 8(4) of the Charter provides that measures taken for the purpose of assisting persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination. Section 12 of the EO Act similarly provides that a person does not discriminate by taking a special measure, which is a measure taken for the purposes of realising substantive equality for people with relevant attributes. Return to work rates and determination timeframes are significantly longer for those who suffer a mental injury compared to those who suffer a physical injury. To the extent that persons with protected attributes will be disproportionately affected by the Bill, I consider that the clauses constitute a special measure and will thus be compatible with the right to equality in section 8 of the Charter. They have the purpose of assisting a group of persons (workers and volunteers with mental injuries) who may be directly or indirectly discriminated against by the previous measures. They address a clear need for measures tailored to address the particular circumstances of workers who have experienced mental injuries and go no further than is required to address this need.

For the same reason, I consider that any limit on the right to equality that may be imposed by these clauses is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 7(2) of the Charter. To the extent that any limitation on the right to equality is occasioned by the operation of new sections 75A and 263B of the WIRC Act, new section 99AG of the AC Act, or the equivalent amendments made to the other Acts, by treating workers differently according to their injury type, I consider that any such limitation is reasonable and demonstrably justified. The proposed amendments are intended to create equity amongst injured workers or volunteers irrespective of the injury suffered and the clauses have been specifically tailored to mitigate the particular impact on workers who have experienced a mental injury.

For completeness, it is unlikely the clauses would have the effect of indirectly discriminating against any person. Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, an unreasonable requirement, condition or practice that either has or is likely to have a disadvantageous effect on persons with an attribute (section 9(1) EO Act). To the extent that mental injuries are more prevalent in particular groups, for example among a particular gender or age group, it is possible that there will be a differential impact. However, this impact is not disadvantageous, and the conditions in the Bill are not unreasonable as required by the definition of indirect discrimination in the EO Act.

For these reasons, I consider that the Bill is compatible with the right to recognition and equality before the law in section 8 of the Charter.

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

Section 13 of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with or 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.

The operation of the new provisional payments scheme will require injured workers or volunteers to provide personal information (including name and contact information) and sensitive information (including health information) specific to their injury to enable their request for provisional payments to be assessed. There is no separate application process for provisional payments. Rather, a worker or volunteer will provide relevant information when they make a claim for compensation in respect of a mental injury.

Currently, section 9 of the WIRC Act provides a statutory mechanism for injured workers to access information about their claim for compensation that is held by the Authority and self-insurer, subject to certain prescribed exceptions.

Clause 11 of the Bill inserts new section 263N into the WIRC Act, which provides that section 9 of the WIRC Act applies to a request for information in relation to the provisional payments scheme. Similarly, clause 35 inserts new section 99AS into the AC Act, which applies section 9 to requested provisional payments under the AC Act.

These provisions do not, in my opinion, limit the right to privacy and reputation. Section 13 of the Charter contains internal limitations that affect the scope of the right. Because any interference with a person’s privacy or reputation occasioned by these provisions will be lawful and non-arbitrary, it will thus will not limit the rights protected by section 13 of the Charter. In this respect I note that the information that will be collected is necessary for the proper functioning of the workers’ compensation scheme and the determination of a claimant’s entitlement to provisional payments and will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the WIRC Act, the AC Act, and the relevant volunteer legislation, which are precise, appropriately circumscribed and reasonable. Furthermore, information of this nature must also be dealt with in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 and the Health Records Act 2001.

Right to property (section 20)

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property is likely to be in accordance with law for the purposes of section 20 of the Charter if the law is publicly accessible, clear and certain. Section 20 does not confer a right to compensation on a person deprived of his or her property.

Clause 11 of the Bill inserts new section 263J into the WIRC Act, which relevantly provides that provisional payments will not be considered to be compensation for the purposes of the WIRC Act, except for the purposes of calculating employer premiums. Premiums for accepted claims will continue to be calculated in accordance with the existing provisions in Part 10 of the WIRC Act. For claims that are rejected but where the worker continues to receive provisional payments for 13 weeks, the individual employer premium will not be affected; rather any increased costs will be allocated at the industry level via the premiums order (as provided for in s 448 of the WIRC Act), reflecting where the risk and hazard of mental injury lies. The Bill similarly amends the AC Act (see clause 35, which introduces section 99AO).

In light of this, the Bill will have a nominal consequential effect on employer premiums arising from the introduction of the provisional payments scheme, potentially engaging the property right in section 20 of the Charter.

In a majority of cases the property right as protected by the Charter will not be engaged, since the right in section 20 applies to a person, and section 3 of the Charter provides that ‘person’ means a ‘human being’ for the purposes of the Charter. Most employers are not natural persons.

In the case of employers who are natural persons, the right is also unlikely to be engaged or limited. This is because the right has an internal limit, requiring that the deprivation of property be other than in accordance with law. Any assessment of premiums that results in an employer who is a natural person paying more than they otherwise would but for the introduction of the Bill, would occur in accordance with a law which is clear, transparent and precise.

Right to a fair hearing (section 24)

Section 24(1) of the Charter provides that a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The right to a fair hearing includes a right to access a court.

For injured volunteers, disputes concerning provisional payments will be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures provided for in each legislative scheme. In each instance, the relevant legislation provides that if a question or matter arises under the Act, the County Court and the Magistrates’ Court have the same jurisdiction to hear and determine the question or matter as though it arose under the WIRC Act or the AC Act.

For injured workers, the new provisional payments scheme will utilise the existing dispute resolution provisions contained in Part 6 of the WIRC Act. Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 281(2) of the WIRC Act to provide that Division 2 of Part 6 applies to a dispute in connection with a request for provisional payments, enabling these disputes to be referred to the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service (ACCS) for conciliation. The Bill will also have the effect of making provisional payment disputes subject to the operation of sections 264 and 266 of the WIRC Act, which respectively provide that the Country Court and Magistrates’ Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear any question or matter arising under the WIRC Act or the AC Act. Parties to disputes will be required to engage in alternative disputes resolution with the ACCS prior to accessing these courts.

The Bill also makes necessary consequential amendments to Part 6 of the WIRC Act to ensure that the existing dispute resolution framework applies to provisional payments disputes.

Clause 17 amends section 297 of the WIRC Act to provide that, in the event that an employer disputes a worker’s eligibility for provisional payments or the reasonableness of a service, a conciliation officer may give a general direction to the Authority, self-insurer or employer to continue to make provisional payments to the injured worker, including throughout the dispute resolution process.

The right to a fair hearing is engaged by the Bill as parties to disputes concerning provisional payments will be required to participate in alternative dispute resolution processes prior to commencing proceedings in a court, and the Magistrates’ Court and County Court have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to such disputes. However, in my opinion, the right to a fair hearing will not be limited. The Bill will not bar access to the courts. Rather, a process is established in which parties will be required to participate before a dispute can be litigated. While the Bill may affect how the right to a fair hearing is realised, it does not limit that right.

Hon Jill Hennessy MP

Attorney-General

Second reading

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (10:08): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech, except for the section 85 statement, be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows, except for statement under section 85(5)(c) of the Constitution Act 1975:

The Bill will deliver the Government’s election commitment to introduce a provisional payments scheme in the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and will provide early access to treatment and support to workers with a mental injury, to assist with their recovery and return to work.

Over the past 13 years, mental injury claims have grown significantly, and that growth is expected to only continue, with rates projected to increase to 33 per cent of all new claims by 2030.

Recent inquiries into mental health, such as the Productivity Commission’s report and the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System highlight the growing need to proactively support workers and volunteers who suffer a mental health injury, to quickly get the help they need.

Mental injury claims often take longer for insurers to determine compared to physical injury claims. Data from WorkSafe shows that on average a mental injury claim takes up to 27 days to determine from the date the insurer receives the claim, compared to 7 days for physical injury claims. As a result, a worker who is suffering a mental injury may not access treatment or support for up to 38 days (five weeks) after lodging their claim. This delay impacts their recovery and ability to return to work.

We also know that mental injuries have lower return to work rates. The higher prevalence and longer lasting mental injury claims will place increased pressure on the scheme’s financial sustainability.

The Bill will address these delays by removing barriers in access to mental health treatment for injured workers, allowing them to get the help they need as early as possible, as well as promoting the sustainability of the scheme by preventing long term claims.

Scope

Consistent with Government’s election commitment, provisional payments will be available to all Victorian workers who have lodged a workers’ compensation claim for mental injury.

The majority of the Bill is intended to commence by proclamation on 1 July 2021, with penalty provisions commencing on 1 January 2022. This is to allow for a period of adjustment for employers to new notification requirements and will be supported by education activity carried out by WorkSafe during implementation.

The Bill provides injured workers with access to payments for reasonable medical and like costs for their mental injury until their claim has been determined. If their claim is rejected, provisional payments will continue to cover the medical and like services for their mental injury for up to 13 weeks, from the date they are deemed eligible for provisional payments.

The objective of providing provisional payments for up to 13 weeks under the Bill for those workers and eligible volunteers whose mental injury claim is rejected is three-fold:

(a) Support injured workers whose claim is initially rejected due to insufficient medical evidence but subsequently overturned;

(b) Support injured workers whose claim is rejected, and they choose to dispute this through the Accident Conciliation and Compensation Service; and

(c) Support injured workers whose claim is rejected to return to work and transition to the public health system.

Workers who have their claim rejected will also have access to transitional services to assist their return to work, such as occupational rehabilitation and facilitated discussions with the injured workers employer (where appropriate).

To ensure parity of support is provided to those workers who develop a mental injury after their original claim for a physical injury has been accepted (secondary mental injury), work will be undertaken to expand existing WorkSafe policy to provide 13 weeks of reasonable medical and like expenses for secondary mental injuries, without a determination by the insurer. The nature of treatment or services will also be expanded to mirror arrangements provided for under the new provisional payments scheme.

Notifications and penalties

To help mitigate the current delays experienced by an injured worker who lodges a mental injury workers’ compensation claim, the Bill will provide injured workers with access to reasonable medical and like expenses within two business days of their employer lodging the claim with their insurer.

This is coupled with a new notification requirement for employers to notify their insurer of the mental injury claim within three business days.

Self-insurers, as both the employer and insurer, will have five business days to assess eligibility for provisional payments.

The employer notification requirement is an additional process for employers and will not impact the employers 10 days to provide further information to the Agent in relation to the determination of the claim, nor will it impact the Agents 28 days to determine the claim.

To promote employer compliance with the three-business day notification requirement, penalties will be introduced for non-compliance to commence six months after the commencement. In addition to the delayed commencement of penalties, education and awareness activities will be carried out by WorkSafe to inform employers of their new obligations.

These reductions in delays coupled with expanded support for rejected claimants will ensure that injured workers are getting the treatment and support the moment they need it.

Removal of employer medical excess

To ensure a streamlined claims management experience for injured workers and reduce the barriers to seeking early treatment and support, the Bill provides that employers will not be required to pay their existing employer excess on any claim that has provisional payments made.

Impact on the WorkCover Scheme

Extensive financial modelling has been undertaken by WorkSafe and its actuaries to ensure the financial viability of the scheme is not compromised by the introduction of provisional payments. To cover the costs of the new legislative scheme, in its first year of operation, an additional $6.1 million is estimated would need to be collected for the 2020–21 financial year represented an impact of 0.003% on the premium rate. Financial modelling highlighted that there will be a growth of 1.8 per cent assumed in future years.

The funding responsibility for rejected claims will sit with WorkSafe, and costs funded through the scheme. Payments for rejected claims will not impact individual employer claims history or premium but will be allocated at an industry level, reflecting where the risk or hazard lies.

Whilst provisional payments for mental injury will create additional costs to the scheme, this upfront investment of early intervention to assist injured workers with mental injuries to receive treatment as soon as possible, will increase return to work prospects and shorten the duration of time off work. This ultimately will save the scheme costs later down the track by preventing longer term clams.

Section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975

Ms HENNESSY: I make the following statement under section 85(5) of the Constitution Act 1975 of the reasons why the bill alters or varies that section.

Clause 30 inserts a new section 617(2) into the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (WIRC Act) to provide that it is the intention of sections 264, 265 and 266 of the WIRC Act, as they apply on and after the commencement of clause 11 of the bill, to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

Clause 31 inserts a new section 618(2) into the WIRC Act to provide that is the intention of new section 263D (as inserted by clause 11 of the bill) to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

Clause 38 inserts a new section 252P(2) in the Accident Compensation Act 1985 to provide the express intention of new section 99AI (as inserted by Clause 35 of the bill) to alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

New section 263D provides that section 227 applies to new division 10 of part 5—Provisional payments for mental injuries. New section 99AI provides for corresponding amendments to be made to include sections 99(10) and (11) in the Accident Compensation Act 1985 for the new provisional payments scheme.

Section 618 of the WIRC act expressly provides that section 227(1) varies or limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and engages section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975. Similarly, section 252P of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 provides that section 99(10) and (11) also varies or limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and therefore also engages section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

The intention of amending these existing sections in the bill is to ensure that the restriction on proceedings necessary to protect workers from actions or proceedings that should be initiated against the authority, employer or self-insurer, who is liable for payments, also applies to the new provisional payments scheme.

In addition to this, the new provisional payments scheme will utilise the existing dispute resolution options available under part 6 of the WIRC act. Section 617 of the WIRC act expressly provides that sections 264, 265 and 266 of the WIRC act alter or vary section 85 of the Constitution Act 1975.

The intention of the bill is to provide consistency with existing processes so that they apply to the new provisional payments scheme. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the relative value of provisional payment disputes will be small, and any dispute that is unresolved at conciliation should proceed to the lower courts.

Incorporated speech continues:

Conclusion

Providing early access to treatment and support for a worker suffering a mental injury is critical. This policy will benefit workers, employers, the WorkCover scheme and the Victorian community as a whole.

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (10:12): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Thursday, 10 December.

Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020

Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motions of Mr PALLAS and Ms ALLAN:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (10:12): The year, 2020, is a year we will all remember and a year we will want to forget. We have all been tested like nothing before. There is no doubt we are living in challenging times. A once-in-100-year pandemic cannot be dismissed as business as usual. As we look around the world at the effects of COVID-19 we can be grateful we live on an island with a world-class health system and a nationally strong economic position. Australia is the lucky country again. But not all Australians are equal when it comes to COVID-19. Victorians are not as fortunate as those in other states. Despite getting down to almost no community transmissions in early June after the first lockdown, Victorians have suffered Australia’s only second wave. We endured the brutal 16-week lockdown because of the incompetence and mismanagement of the Andrews Labor government. Victoria is in the grip of Labor’s second-wave shutdown recession.

Everything this Andrews Labor government touches, they mismanage. Labor mismanaged the bipartisan Level Crossing Removal Project with a budget blowout of $3.3 billion. Labor has mismanaged the Metro Tunnel project, which has already blown out by $2 billion. Labor has mismanaged the West Gate Tunnel, where the cost blowout is about $1.2 billion—that we know about—and is rising. Yet the Minister for Transport Infrastructure—or should I say the ‘Minister for Hi-Vis Pic Ops’?—refuses ever to mention the money, the blowouts and the waste. She tells us she makes no apologies. Well, Minister, you should be apologising. Now the Treasurer admits that the scale of his government’s budget blowouts is beyond him. On 3AW Neil Mitchell asked the Treasurer, ‘Let’s look at the top 10. What are they blowing out by?’. The Treasurer’s reply: ‘Well, Neil, I don’t know’. What a complete failure to do his job.

The Treasurer is at least meant to know how hopeless the Minister for Transport Infrastructure is at managing project costs. In a properly functioning government the Treasurer would be taking oversight control of project cost blowouts to protect the integrity of Victoria’s finances. Rather than account for the waste, mismanagement and profligacy of the major projects, the Treasurer hid this information from Victorians by deleting one of the longstanding budget papers—the one that lists all the projects and their costs. The Treasurer yesterday in Parliament quoted with approval from the Grattan Institute. Well, today Marion Terrill, the Grattan Institute’s transport and cities program director, said of this failure to publish:

These are public projects, we have a right to know.

Yes, Treasurer, we do.

Labor’s hotel quarantine failures and contact-tracing inaccuracies will leave financial and mental scars on Victoria for generations. Labor has mismanaged the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, costing 800 lives and tens of billions of dollars, and that is to say nothing of the mental health impact from the second lockdown. Millions of Victorians were locked down for months on end with mental and physical health consequences we will see for years, if not decades. Hundreds of thousands lost their livelihoods, and many thousands have lost their small or medium-sized businesses. Tens of thousands more currently have sleepless nights worrying about losing their family home. But despite Victoria being the hardest hit state in Australia, the Premier’s political strategy is to compare Victoria to the United States or Europe. What the Premier wants to avoid at all costs is any comparison of Victoria to New South Wales—or Queensland for that matter. Now, when it is time to recover from the economic effects of the second-wave lockdowns, we see Victorians are still not as fortunate as Australians in other states. Rather than this budget being a recovery budget, this budget will harm Victoria’s recovery and saddle every Victorian woman, man and child with $23 100 in debt that the Andrews Labor government has no intention ever to repay. I have a simple test for measures in this budget: if it does not get us back from recession and unemployment, then it is Labor’s wish list, not Victoria’s wish list. This budget delivers more debt than every other state and the biggest budget deficit. This is not COVID recovery; this is Labor being Labor. The Premier himself said on Tuesday morning:

If you’re going to have a stimulus, if you’re going to kickstart the economy, get people back to work and build that confidence into 21 and 22 … then you need to make a fast start—

so that projects can be delivered quickly.

What a shame he has not taken his own advice. The last time Labor took Victoria here we had massive youth unemployment, and it is already at 18 per cent. The last time Labor took us here Victoria had higher than average job losses, and we have got that too. And the last time Labor took Victoria down the debt and deficit path we had ongoing business closures, and unfortunately the data shows we have got that as well. The Andrews Labor government is delivering debt levels not seen since the Cain-Kirner Labor government. Victoria was the rust bucket of the nation following its economic catastrophe. We had population loss, businesses relocating to other states and a generation of young people that had that first vital step into work delayed by years.

While the mismanagement of the pandemic in Victoria has left our wonderful state with clever, hardworking and tolerant people suffering its harshest effects, we must not forget that the Premier and Labor had wrecked the budget long before the pandemic appeared. Before COVID Victoria was already almost doubling debt, to $40.3 billion, in only 12 months. The budget was bleeding in deficit and the quarterly Treasury releases said it had been in deficit since July 2019. On top of that, the ratings agencies warned Victoria that the AAA rating was at risk because of excessive public sector wage growth. Victoria’s economy was fragile before COVID.

The global pandemic has exposed the damage the Andrews Labor government has done to Victoria. It has exposed its failure to diversify our growth beyond building and construction, and overseas students. It has shown that, apart from increasing the size of the bureaucracy and their pay packets, there has been no plan for the jobs that drive the economy. It has exposed the fragility of Victoria’s budget position—a fragility that matters when other states’ strength is then used to harm our recovery.

But despite the growing bureaucracy that saw public sector employee expenses grow 14 per cent in one year, to $30 billion, the pandemic has also exposed just how poor government administration is in this state. To strip critical functions of the health department so bare to the extent we only had 15 public health officials in all of Victoria and, as 27 March of this year, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services had one person fulfilling the role of infection prevention and control, one full-time position, is reckless. No-one had to foresee a pandemic to know that public health needed more resources than that.

The data tells us the story of just how much damage this Labor government has inflicted on the people of Victoria, particularly the women and small business people of Victoria. Every day this damning data is released it paints a dark and sombre picture of unemployment, lack of business confidence, loneliness, mortgage and rental stress, and small business closure. These are the real and ongoing effects of Labor’s failure to manage the second wave. These are the real problems the budget needs to address right now. Instead, what we have got is a focus group-tested political document.

The ABS, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, shows that 8.8 per cent of women are unemployed—the highest this century. Some 146 500 women are unemployed. That is the highest on record. Overall, Victoria has lost 141 000 jobs since March, and that is the worst jobs result in Australia. Despite their political spin, women have not been helped by the Andrews Labor government to the same extent as men.

The Andrews Labor government finds it easy to deal with big business and big unions. Equity Economics found that at every stage of the government’s now-abandoned road map more men got their jobs back quicker than women. We saw construction, particularly in the government’s infrastructure projects, able to keep operating through the harshest of the restrictions, and this budget continues to favour these male-dominated employment sectors. Construction is 89 per cent male, and it gets a whopping $69 billion in additional expenditure. By contrast, the female-dominated private sector industries of beauty services, fitness and the creative industries get no specific help, and given their generally small enterprise size, will not benefit from business tax cuts to any great extent. Australian Financial Review analysis shows that less than $1.1 billion of $49 billion in stimulus measures is directly targeted at the private sector. That is about 2 per cent of the government’s stimulus directed at the private sector.

Last week the ABS’s payroll jobs and total wages data showed businesses with under 200 employees in Victoria have lost jobs at over three times the rate of businesses that employ over 200 people. Since the pandemic began in March payroll jobs in small businesses that employ under 20 people have fallen by 9.4 per cent, while large businesses that employ over 200 people have only seen a 2.7 per cent reduction in payroll jobs. It came as no surprise to anybody in touch with small business when the latest NAB SME survey showed that the small business confidence in Victoria is lower than every other state in mainland Australia at negative 16. Victoria was the only state not to record a significant recovery in small business confidence last quarter, and when asked by Sensis about the impact of government policies, more Victorian small and medium businesses than any other state believed that the policies of the state government here are working against small business. Two-thirds of Victorian small businesses believe the Victorian economy will be worse in 12 months.

Small business investors do not have confidence in the Andrews Labor government. They do not have confidence in the Labor government’s ability to manage the hotel quarantine program and contain the virus when the program restarts. Victorians do not have confidence in the Labor government’s ability to manage contact tracing if a third wave develops next year. Investors have confidence in the New South Wales government’s ability to do this and to keep their economy going. Confidence and hope are the critical components of an economic recovery. Consumer and investor confidence to spend money and keep money pumping through the economy are essential preconditions for an economic recovery. Victorians have lost confidence in the Andrews Labor government’s management.

It is no wonder then that the most recent NAB quarterly consumer anxiety survey shows that consumer anxiety around job security and government policy in Victoria is the highest in Australia. Victoria was also one of only two states with higher levels of consumer anxiety in the September quarter compared to the June quarter. Victorians are more concerned about the economy than any other state in Australia. Getting Victorians back to work is not looking good. The National Skills Commission’s latest vacancy report shows that over the past 12 months Victoria has recorded the largest drop in job advertisements of any state. Job advertisements in Victoria are down by 23.3 per cent—that is 10 000 job advertisements. Now, job advertisements are a well-accepted forerunner to jobs growth.

The Property Council of Australia reports that CBD office occupancy is 7 per cent in Melbourne. In Perth it is above 70 per cent. And in the all-important Sydney market it is above 40 per cent—and rising fast. The government needs to get CBD office workers back in their offices, including government public servants, because if we want hospitality, retail, personal services, arts and culture to come back, we have to see the CBD back. The million workers who usually work in town buy lunch, go to the gym, drop off their dry-cleaning, shop at lunchtime and catch up for a drink after work. These are the things that help make Melbourne Melbourne. If Melburnians cannot do that, there is no normal and there is no chance of a full economic recovery.

By 30 October there were 312 600 JobKeeper applicants in Victoria at a cost of $20 billion. Sixty per cent of JobKeeper payments in December are expected to come from Victoria, despite Victoria only comprising 26 per cent of Australia’s population. To date, the Morrison government has been doing all the heavy lifting on Victoria’s economy, and this budget was an opportunity for the Victorian government to start doing the same. Having created these hardships in Victoria, hardships that see the federal government supporting Victorians through JobKeeper and JobSeeker, the state Labor government needed to make this budget all about urgent jobs recovery. But when we look behind the empty words of the Treasurer and the Premier, this budget is not at all going to deliver the jobs recovery any time soon, and indeed not across all sectors of Victoria.

The Liberal-Nationals brought forward our ideas to get Victorians back to work and back in business. We constructively put out a comprehensive plan to grow employment and the targets the government needs to be measured against. Small business is the engine room of jobs and the jobs recovery. That is why we believe the government must commit to a target of 704 000 small businesses operating by 1 July 2022. Only then will the government be able to deliver a jobs target of 380 000 new jobs by 1 July 2022, and delivering 380 000 jobs by July 2022 is what is needed. The government has pitched it too low at 200 000. That leaves unemployment too high.

Indeed, with all this spending and all this debt, don’t Victorians have the right to expect a jobs recovery by July 2022? Because make no mistake, the government’s two-year target of only 200 000 new jobs will leave the state with stubborn unemployment, tragically high youth unemployment and a continuation of the misery and pain that high unemployment brings. It is not too late for the government to prioritise getting people back to work across all sectors of the Victorian economy. The bed night accommodation levels before COVID need to be a target for the government to get back to. It is the same with the creative economy. One of the hardest hit sectors needs more concrete ways to return it to the job levels it had in June 2019.

Just as the appropriate comparisons for the health response to COVID are other Australian states, the appropriate comparisons for budget responses are also other Australian states. Fortuitously, all except Queensland have brought down their budgets already. Budgets matter. They matter as a scorecard of how the government is managing the economy on behalf of Victorians. Budgets matter because they set out in black and white what the priorities of a government are. Budgets matter because they allow Victorians to judge if their government is doing the right thing, keeping to its word, going forwards not backwards.

On the four key budget measures of return to surplus, debt, the taxation burden and the AAA credit rating, the Victorian Treasurer is failing Victorians. Let us start with debt. The Andrews Labor government plans to increase debt to $155 billion by June 2024. The government will have Victorians believe that this is somehow a justified response to COVID, and the Treasurer has said it is in line with other Australian jurisdictions. What rubbish! New South Wales is going to $104 billion debt, Western Australia to $29 billion, South Australia to $24 billion and Tasmania to $4 billion. In September the Queensland Treasurer said his state’s debt would rise to $102 billion. Victoria, remember, is forecasting $155 billion. Any additional debt taken on needs to be for recovery and not eaten up in the project mismanagement waste we have seen to date. On the announced debt projections, Victoria has both the highest per person debt at $23 100 and the highest debt to the size of our economy at 29 per cent. God forbid we get a third wave or any other setback. With that amount of debt already factored in, the choices open to the government to help with the recovery in the future will be constrained.

Then there is the budget balance. This year the Victorian budget is in deficit by $23 billion. That is more than the combined budget deficits of every other state in Australia that has delivered a budget. Let nobody say this deficit is about COVID recovery; this is Victorian Labor being Labor. Moreover, across all the estimates in all the state budgets, Victoria’s budget deficit will be more than the combined budget deficits of all the rest for the next four years. We need to pause and let that sink in. Over the next four years Victoria’s total budget deficits will be $49 billion, and that is more than New South Wales, South Australia, WA and Tasmania’s combined budget deficits. This government is not recovering from COVID, it is spraying money on pet projects and covering up its waste and inability to manage projects. South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania all expect to be back in budget surplus by June 2024. New South Wales will be a year later. Victoria has no such path back to economic responsibility. The best the Treasurer can come up with is saying:

… I’m not going to push this—

‘this’ being a surplus—

too hard …

He is not pushing the door of deficit closed at all. A more apt analogy would be to say, having opened the tap of spending full on, he has now found that it is jammed open, gushing ever more debt on Victorians’ heads. Despite the Treasurer holding his position for six years, he has not yet grasped the fundamentals. Every year the Treasurer runs a deficit—and of course he had started doing that before COVID reared its ugly head—Victoria goes further into debt. Victoria’s debt will not peak at the eyewatering $155 billion in the budget papers; it will be much more for as long as this Treasurer, this government has no plan to get us back to surplus.

Having abandoned his financial management goals of only doubling debt and of ever running a budget surplus again so some of that new debt can be repaid, the only pillar of the Treasurer’s own budget strategy is retaining the AAA credit rating. Back in his 2018 budget speech, a speech notable for its exceptional levels of hubris, the Treasurer claimed that he had maintained his prized AAA credit rating. He said:

Crucially, they’re the means by which we build the state and we deliver for all Victorians.

Then the Treasurer told us before the 2018 election what he and Labor regarded as the government’s fiscal priorities. He said Labor’s Financial Statement continues their commitment to running a AAA-rated budget. Again last year in the budget speech the Treasurer told Victorians why keeping the AAA credit rating is so important. He said:

We remain AAA credit rated from both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s.

It is a testament to our prudent economic management and fiscal discipline.

Having catapulted debt to $155 billion and still rising and announced the biggest budget deficit in the history of Victoria or any state, only the prized AAA credit rating remains as a pillar of Labor’s fiscal strategy. And now the Treasurer walks away from that one too, telling the Herald Sun last Sunday that it is not a priority. He seems to think that a credit rating is like a credit limit, there to be used, claiming:

… I would make the point that a credit rating is all about the capacity to borrow, you’re only rated for the purpose of borrowing.

Yes, Treasurer, and if you lose your rating, it gets more expensive to borrow. Now interest rates are low and borrowing is cheap—cheapest of all for those with the best credit ratings—but it is magical thinking to argue, as the Treasurer is, that a AAA credit rating is only there to allow him to borrow at least $155 billion and then it does not matter if the AAA is lost. The ratings agencies do not share his magical thinking. Moody’s Investors Service said the lockdown had ‘severely eroded’ Victoria’s budget position and ‘weakened its capacity to pursue timely fiscal repair’. Standard & Poor’s said there was now a 50-50 chance of downgrading the state’s AAA credit rating. So there is the final pillar of the Treasurer’s already weak approach to managing the state finances beginning to topple too.

Now, for decades there has been a tremendous economic rivalry and contest between Victoria and New South Wales. For several years under Labor this government has worn the unwanted crown as the highest taxing in Australia, and for as long as it shackles itself to thinking that tax reform means raising taxes—an approach that has seen it introduce 29 new or expanded taxes in six years—Victoria will not gain the benefits from structural tax reform. By contrast, Treasurer Dom Perrottet in New South Wales has embarked on major structural tax reform to drive productivity and economic growth in his state. From Kennett’s premiership onwards Victoria has shrugged off its rust bucket, sclerotic image and revelled in having the most livable city, the biggest and best sporting events and strong employment growth. But the Victorian economy is now burdened with higher unemployment and higher debt as a result of the Andrews Labor government’s bungled hotel quarantine program and third-rate contact-tracing program. No wonder Melburnians have made up 42 per cent of the total ‘moving out’ searches on Muval, an online booking platform for relocation services, since August.

Labor’s mismanagement will leave scars on the Victorian economy for generations, and as a result potential investors are flocking to New South Wales, intending to invest their capital in a state where the government provides competent leadership. New South Wales is clearly at the head of the pack in Australia—a sentence as a proud Victorian I really do not like saying. Gladys Berejiklian has shown what real state leadership in a crisis looks like. Her government has competently managed the hotel quarantine program and is the gold standard for contact tracing. That meant that when the Victorian economy was forced to shut for 16 weeks during the second wave the New South Wales government was already commencing their economic recovery. All states are taking on additional debt as they run budget deficits and ramp up infrastructure to get their citizens back to work. But every other state has prioritised shovel-ready projects and is getting on with them. Victoria has abandoned the most obvious shovel-ready project, the one that it has got half-finished, the Murray Basin rail project. It will not start one that has been ready for years, the east–west link, and has left languishing a raft of smaller transport infrastructure projects, such as tramline extensions and metro rail duplications.

Somehow the Suburban Rail Loop needs funding. However, the government will not tell Victorians how much that will cost or for how long. We are left with $2.2 billion now and another potential $150 billion to buy the Suburban Rail Loop. If the Suburban Rail Loop is a real project with actual construction dollars allocated to it, Victorians must know how much the full project will cost. Are we in fact facing not only the $155 billion in debt Labor admits to but $300 billion, and if not, what additional taxes are planned to pay for it?

For despite what the Minister for Transport Infrastructure believes, there is no magic pudding. Somehow this monstrously large project she and the Premier are spruiking needs to be paid for. Given this Labor government’s track record on waste and budget blowouts, the very least Victorians deserve is to know how much it will cost.

I will now turn briefly to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020, which is being debated concurrently with the budget. I begin by thanking all the staff of the Parliament and the Department of Parliamentary Services. I thank the clerks and the attendants of the Parliament, notably the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Bridget Noonan, whose advice I always find helpful and encompassing to whatever issue is raised. I also thank the gardeners, whose work delights me whenever I look out the window from my office. Lastly, I single out for special mention this year the kitchen and catering staff, both those who serve me my meals and coffees and those who have worked so hard over the pandemic to feed the homeless. Their efforts have shown the Parliament, in its broader sense of all of those who are privileged to work in this building, at its best.

This bill, the Parliament bill, includes the budget for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. In 2019–20 the budget allocated $44 148 000 to IBAC. In this current budget IBAC is allocated $42 196 000—a reduction of $1 952 000—yet the Premier promised Victorians in the Parliament that IBAC would receive an increase. As the Treasurer likes to claim, it is all there in black and white—it is all there in black and white. And we must not forget what IBAC is doing at the moment. It is investigating corruption by dodgy developer John Woodman, a man who has been donating to the Premier’s election campaigns since he first ran for Parliament. IBAC is also investigating branch stacking and corruption within the Victorian Labor Party. The IBAC Commissioner has asked for additional resources, noting:

The ability of IBAC to meet the growing demands and expectations of Parliament and the people of Victoria depends upon the resources, as well as powers, at our disposal … I remain concerned that IBAC has not received any increase to its recurring budget since its inception in 2012, and this must be addressed.

Yet the government cuts IBAC’s budget instead.

I now turn to my electorate of Ripon. Last year I talked about two major projects that had not received funding in the budget. Unfortunately I could, if I so wished, read from Hansard at this stage, as the situation has not improved. The final stage of the Western Highway duplication project from Ararat to Stawell has not been funded despite the federal Liberal Morrison government’s allocation of $360 million, meaning the state only needs to find the remaining $90 million to achieve a significant road build. As I said last year: just build the road, Treasurer.

Last year the government claimed they were funding the Maryborough hospital by putting some money into contingencies. This year they have given away that fig leaf and they have committed $5.2 million—of a $100 million project. There is no money to build the building—none—and for the years in which it could be built, to at least be started before the next election, no funds are allocated. The government promised the people of Maryborough that it would deliver the full $100 million this term. Where is it, Treasurer? Where is it?

All Victorians want Victoria to succeed. We want our COVID recovery to be fast and deep and fair. Like other Victorians, I support spending that aids recovery. But what I do not support is Labor spending on its mates and pet projects. I do not support the cover of COVID recovery to hide billions of dollars already wasted on cost overruns, redesigns and project mismanagement. Borrowing money only to waste it means less is available for recovery, yet that is the Labor way—in this budget to the tune of at least $155 billion. The Treasurer has given up trying to rein in the Premier and the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. He is defeated.

The Treasurer has given up on Victorians. What other conclusions can be drawn from a budget that borrows more than every other state, runs a bigger budget deficit than all the other states combined and concedes the likely loss of the AAA credit rating but does not get Victorians back to work? Of all the years, this is not the year to abandon Victorians, not when there is a jobs crisis. It is not the year to revert to Labor waste and Labor lies.

Mr STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:51): It is a pleasure to rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. I have been a member of this Parliament now long enough to have been here for six budgets. This is my first as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, and I congratulate the Treasurer on a budget that has been handed down in the tradition of this Andrews Labor government—and that is, to continue to build jobs and opportunities for Victorians. In every investment that this government has made it has always been with that central aim—that we will use our budget to create opportunities for Victorians, and this budget is absolutely no exception.

I sat here and listened to the budget reply from the member for Ripon, the Shadow Treasurer. She said all sorts of things. She said that the Morrison government had been doing all the heavy lifting. I might let that one slide, because I think it speaks for itself, but she also said that we cannot compare ourselves to the rest of the world; that in this global pandemic we should not be comparing ourselves to the rest of the globe.

If we do not compare ourselves with other jurisdictions around the world, frankly, we risk letting our guard down, because the rest of the world is on fire with this coronavirus—absolutely on fire with this coronavirus, whereas here in Victoria we have our 27th day of zero cases, zero deaths and we have zero active cases. Many, including many on the opposite side of the house, did not think this was possible. In fact they said that it was fanciful. The road map was fanciful. We were never going to meet those milestones. Perhaps there were some who did not want us to meet those milestones. Perhaps there were some who were barracking for the virus. But in fact we got there. We got there thanks to the hard work and determination of Victorians. The government asked Victorians to do things that we had never asked them to do before. It has been an incredibly rough year. It has been a year that has been incredibly difficult for so many people. Nobody has survived this year unscathed, but it has been harder on some than it has been on others, and we acknowledge that.

I have thought every day about people whose livelihoods have been impacted by this virus—the small business people who have struggled to keep their heads above water. They have made a lot of sacrifices, but we have come to the other end of this public health crisis, and while it is not over and we must not ever think that it is over, Victorians can have every reason to be optimistic for the future, because it is this budget that is kicking off our economic recovery, and central to the budget is a plan for jobs, a plan for 400 000 jobs to be created by 2025, 200 000 by 2022.

Victorians can trust that we will deliver on those jobs, because we did it in our first term. Prior to this pandemic, since we came to office Victoria had created 523 000 new jobs. Under the previous government we had the highest unemployment rate in mainland Australia. We must never forget that. It is important that we remember that just a short 12 months ago things were very, very different economically in Victoria.

We had a budget that was in surplus and we had surpluses forecast into the forward estimates. We had an unemployment rate that had fallen to 4.6 per cent—an 11-year low. We had embarked on a very, very ambitious infrastructure agenda, one we were all very proud of: level crossing removals, metro rail tunnel, North East Link, West Gate Tunnel, many, many school capital projects—and the list goes on. And we used those infrastructure investments to create opportunities for apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets to create thousands and thousands of jobs. It was an infrastructure program that underpinned 165 000 jobs for Victorians.

Then of course this year we had the bushfires, and then we had the pandemic. You know, there were some who were urging us to put the economy ahead of public health, just like they have done in other countries. I know the opposition does not like us to compare ourselves with other countries, but I think we need to. In the matter of public importance debate yesterday I mentioned the UK, where they certainly had not taken—initially at least—the coronavirus seriously and had prioritised the economy. They are in a hard lockdown now. They do not have good public health in order and they do not have a strong economy—in fact their economy is forecast to be 10 per cent smaller than it was when we got into this pandemic.

Those opposite say, ‘Let’s not compare ourselves to the rest of the world’, but you know what? In a global pandemic I think we need to, because this government had to crush the virus. Tomorrow it will have been 28 days straight without a single case of coronavirus—hopefully, touch wood. We had to crush the virus before we could trigger the economic recovery, and the economic recovery starts with this budget. It absolutely starts with this budget. As I said, key to this budget are the jobs that we are planning on creating, and what underpins them is a massive investment in infrastructure. It was the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia who urged states to spend another $40 billion on infrastructure. It is important that our investment continues in that space.

I want to turn to a few highlights in that space. One of those is school capital projects. This year we are spending $3 billion on school capital projects. We are opening many brand new schools around the state. How many schools do we reckon were funded between 2010 and 2014—how many?

Members interjecting.

Mr STAIKOS: More doughnuts—absolutely zero. We deliver zeros in other ways, but back in 2010 to 2014 not a single new school was funded despite Melbourne being the fastest growing capital city in the world. Well, this year alone we are spending $3 billion on school capital projects, including new schools. We are creating space for another 27 000 or 28 000 students in Victoria. It is because we are the Education State. We are investing in education, and of course education and training is key to our recovery economically.

We have had a free TAFE program for the last couple of years. In my electorate, at Holmesglen TAFE in Moorabbin, the diploma of nursing is the most popular free TAFE program. Many thousands of people are becoming qualified as nurses for free thanks to our government. We are expanding on all of that with another $1 billion investment in TAFE and training. That includes providing up to 80 000 new training places over four years and $631 million to ensure the TAFE system can help more Victorians re-skill, upskill and find work as well as funding to attract and support people to re-skill as teachers at Victorian TAFEs. We are also expanding our support for apprentices, trainees and engineering cadets to work on the Victorian government’s Big Build agenda because, as I said, our infrastructure agenda is not only about providing infrastructure but about providing those jobs and opportunities for Victorians as well.

I turn now to a very, very important and historic announcement—that is, the $6 billion Big Housing Build package, through which we are going to build more than 12 000 new social and affordable homes over the next four years. We should be very, very proud of that investment, and I note that the Shadow Treasurer on Virginia Trioli’s program recently indicated that the opposition was very supportive of that investment. As I said in the matter of public importance debate yesterday, it is a four-year program, and I have seen these social housing investments before in my electorate, before I was even a member, when Rob Hudson was the Labor member for Bentleigh. While we might hear from some that they support the investment, they resist the implementation of it. They say, ‘Don’t put it there. Send it far away’, and that was certainly the very hardline response we saw from the then opposition back in 2009.

So I urge the opposition not just to get behind the investment in social housing but to get behind the implementation, because again, that investment is not just about infrastructure and not just about providing jobs in construction; it is about providing opportunities for people. It is about breaking the cycle of poverty, because you cannot lift yourself out of poverty if you have not got a roof over your head. You cannot go and take advantage of the Andrews government’s free TAFE program if you are homeless. You cannot go for a job interview if you are homeless. This is about changing the lives of so many Victorians, and we know that the more Victorians who are experiencing the dignity of work, able to provide for themselves and their families and be on a right path to a fulfilling life, the better it is for all of us.

I also say this: the pandemic has exposed some gaps in our community as well. One of those is insecure work. Insecure work has proven to be toxic. It has proven to be bad for our health. I am so proud that the Premier has announced as part of this budget the secure work pilot scheme, which will start in late 2021 or early 2022 and will provide up to five days of paid sick leave at the minimum wage for casual or insecure workers. We know what an issue that has been during the pandemic. It is very well and good to tell people to isolate, but if they do not go to work, many people—and there are some estimates that insecure workers are about a quarter of the workforce—do not get a pay cheque. In my role as the Treasurer’s parliamentary secretary I have just been running some consultations on the inquiry into the on-demand workforce, where we see a lot of insecure workers and gig economy workers. I can tell you that it is a real problem and this government wants to do something about that. We need leadership not just from this government on that issue, but—the member for Ripon said that the Morrison government had done all the heavy lifting in this pandemic, apparently—we need the federal government to get on board with some of these very, very important changes to the way we approach work in this country.

I now want in the last 2 minutes of my time to contribute to this bill to turn my electorate. It has been another fantastic budget for the Bentleigh electorate. I was very proud to be able to announce to my community that two special schools have had major upgrades funded. Southern Autistic School, which is currently constructing stage 1, has now had stage 2 funded to the tune of $6.6 million. As well, Bayside Special Developmental School—the Premier opened stage 1 last year and we have just funded stage 2 to the tune of $3.45 million.

I am proud to have joined the federal Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, last week to announce a joint contribution with the commonwealth government towards the Danny Frawley Centre for Health and Wellbeing at Moorabbin Reserve, St Kilda Football Club’s headquarters. Danny Frawley was not just a St Kilda legend on the field but he was also an advocate for mental health services. He was talking about mental health long before many people were talking about it, and this is the best way to honour his legacy, to create a centre in Moorabbin to foster good mental health and one that will include a lot of community spaces like a hydrotherapy pool that will directly benefit our local community.

I was also proud that the South Road upgrade is now fully funded in this budget. Again, that is a joint project now with the federal government, and we thank them for their contribution. South Road now carries around 40 000 vehicles a day. It is connected to the Dingley bypass, which will soon be connected to the Mordialloc Freeway, so this is an upgrade that will make South Road work better for all of us, pedestrians and motorists, and it will cater for the future. We have had funding in the budget for two intersection upgrades that are all about easing congestion and improving safety at those intersections.

I am proud of this budget because it is a budget framed under very difficult circumstances but one that will start the economic recovery of Victoria. It will mean jobs for Victorians, it will mean livelihoods for Victorians and it will mean opportunities for Victorians—that is what all six of the Andrews Labor government’s budgets have been about. I commend the bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (11:06): I rise to make a contribution on the budget debate. I suppose I would like to point out to the previous speaker, the member for Bentleigh, the inconvenient truths about COVID and Australia. Yes, compared to the rest of the world Australia has been very fortunate, but actually we need to compare ourselves with the other states.

If you think about Victoria and New South Wales, New South Wales had the Ruby Princess, which seems a long time ago now, and they had a very high level of COVID in that state. With good contact tracing and with good management they actually got that under control and they kept their economy open, they kept their economy functioning. Whereas with Victoria, the context of this budget is the second wave of COVID in Victoria, the failures of hotel quarantine, the failures of contact tracing that let that spread a lot further than it should have, which means that we are in the situation we are in in Victoria, where tragically over 800 people lost their lives. If you look at the fatalities to COVID in Australia, Victoria has contributed nearly all of those fatalities because of the failures in contact tracing and the failures in hotel quarantine.

If there was any other disaster in Australia where 800 people were killed—if there was a major rail accident and 800 people were tragically killed or if there was a high-rise building that fell down, burnt down or something happened and 800 people tragically lost their lives—there would be hell to pay. I am just so gobsmacked that no-one seems to want to take accountability for that particular situation here in Victoria. To have the Coate inquiry and to have ministers and particularly the Premier come along to the Coate inquiry and actually have the questions asked and, from my memory, say 27 times to questions at the Coate inquiry, ‘I do not recall’—I just do not think that is good enough for all Victorians. It is certainly not good enough for those 800 families that are grieving the people that passed away because of COVID. So the context of the budget is the fact that the crisis that we are in is a crisis of the making of the Andrews government because of the way they managed COVID, the way they managed hotel quarantine and their failures in contact tracing. That is why we are where we are with this budget at the moment.

And it is only half a budget. The Treasurer has not even had the decency to prepare budget paper 4, the capital works projects. Every year we get the budget papers and we have got BP4 there which sets out all the capital projects for Victoria, where they are up to and who is ahead and who is behind when it comes to cost overruns on that project. I think everyone knows the reason there is no BP4—it is because the Treasurer is ashamed of what has happened, he is ashamed of the cost blowouts of major projects here in Victoria. From the last adding up that we did it is over $25 billion in cost overruns on projects here in Victoria, and might I point out that the vast majority of those projects are in the Minister for Transport Infrastructure’s portfolio. It is just, again, almost inconceivable that someone could be so incompetent that we could get to a situation like we are in now with $25 billion of cost blowouts in this state. There are the level crossing removals, which the minister and the government love to talk about a lot—$3.3 billion in cost blowouts on that particular project. And those are the Auditor-General’s figures—$3.3 billion. That is a lot of hospital beds, that is lot of people getting their elective surgery and that is a lot of roads in regional Victoria being fixed that you could actually do with $3.3 billion. Metro Tunnel—a $2 billion blowout and adding on that particular one. The east–west link—we can go back to that one, where $1.3 billion was spent not to build a road. That would fix a lot of roads in country Victoria, that $1.3 billion. And the list goes on.

The project that is so dear to the hearts of a lot of people in Victoria, particularly in north-west and western Victoria, is the Murray Basin rail project—a project for which the Minister for Transport Infrastructure took great delight in announcing in 2015 that ‘Only an Andrews government could build this project’. Well, it would appear that only an Andrews government could botch this project so badly that you have actually got reports now that those railway lines are in a worse condition than they were before they started being modernised and standardised under this particular project.

The Mildura to Maryborough line has been standardised and has had some upgrades, but as we have seen in a lot of the photos, the workmanship on that is very, very poor. The Maryborough to Ararat line has been standardised and opened, but they have used second-hand rail that does not weld to the existing rail there. We have got the issue where welds are failing. As I understand it, there is a 25-kilometre-an-hour speed restriction on that line because it is just not up to scratch. And as for the Sea Lake and Manangatang lines, well, no show, your honour. As I understand it, they are not going to be standardised into the future. We are going to end up with a freight rail system in north-west and western Victoria that is going to have the worst of both worlds—some will be standardised to a very poor condition and some will not to be standardised at all. You will have two different sorts of rolling stock to run there and all the inefficiencies that will lead to in transport.

There has been a so-called business case put to the commonwealth to fix up the mess of those two lines I talked about, Mildura to Maryborough and Maryborough to Ararat. But as I understand it, it is effectively a close-out proposal, where the minister wants money from the commonwealth to fix up her mess but not actually finish the project at all, so those lines that have not been standardised will not be standardised into the future. That has left north-west Victoria in a worse condition from a freight point of view than when it started.

I do not think anyone argues against governments, whether it be commonwealth or state, borrowing to build infrastructure. But they actually expect to get value for that money. They expect that to have a long-lasting effect for Victorians. It is called an investment. What they do not like is borrowing to fill those black holes that I talked about in the $25 billion worth of cost overruns—and still adding. What is not good from a government point of view is actually borrowing for recurrent expenditure. If you borrow to build it into your recurrent expenditure, into your wages bill, over time that is not delivering for Victoria. Anyone that has ever run a business and gone to a bank manager to get a loan knows that, yes, you can get a loan for a capital investment, because they know that is quarantined and you get a particular asset out of that investment, but you do not go to the bank year after year to borrow to pay your wages bill. They know that if you go to the bank to borrow to pay your wages bill every year, you will eventually go broke because you are not viable into the future.

Unfortunately the Treasurer of Victoria does not actually have to prepare a loan application to a bank manager, because if a bank manager sat down and looked at the budget we have got here in front of us that we are debating at the moment and saw what some of the borrowings are for, the bank manager would ask the inconvenient questions about why you need this money to pay recurrent expenditure. It should not be about paying recurrent expenditure. Governments should be borrowing for capital, for investments to help Victorians for generations, not to meet the short-term funding black holes that they have at the moment and not to meet recurrent expenditure into the future.

A number of people have described this government, particularly around its projects, as ‘All headline and no deadline’. I think that is probably a very apt way of putting it. The government is very good at their media announcements, very good at continuing those media announcements but not very good when it comes to actually meeting deadlines and getting projects finished on time or on budget.

I suppose the other two backgrounds to the current budget and the current situation we have that I would like to raise in the debate, from a regional Victorian point of view, include that, as a result of COVID, with our backpacker population, which provides a lot of the seasonal labour, returning home and no new backpackers coming in and the Andrews government’s inability to get Pacific Islands workers here, there is a real risk of a critical labour shortage in our horticulture industry this summer. I do not think the Andrews government, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, is taking this issue seriously. There is money in the budget supposedly to solve this issue, but I cannot see anywhere, and the people I talk to in industry cannot see, how the government is actually going to spend that money to deliver an outcome to make sure we have the labour we need for the seasonal labour here in Victoria this year. It is a bit like the COVID response: other states have been able to do it. The Northern Territory brought people in to pick mangoes. Queensland has a system to bring Pacific Islanders in for their harvest. Western Australia has actually used the Northern Territory system to bring workers in for their particular demand there. Victoria just seems to go round and round in circles, having Zoom conferences with industry without finding any solutions about that. So I would flag that there is a looming issue around the supply of labour for particularly our horticulture industry that this government is not taking seriously at all.

The other part is the tensions at the moment between China and Australia. China is the biggest market for a lot of our exports. There are the tensions there at the moment. We have seen the tariff that has been put on barley. We have seen the issues about red meat not having access to China. We have seen the issue around wine not getting into China.

Mr T Bull: Timber.

Mr WALSH: And as the member for East Gippsland points out, there is the recent stopping of all timber exports to China. There is, again, a small amount of money in the budget for extra market development. It is not just about the money in the budget; it is about the willingness of the government to engage with other countries and actually make sure we get those extra markets, which spreads our risk away from having so much reliance on China as market. A classic example of that is that I went out last week to the Steritech facility, the X-ray irradiation facility, at Merrifield. They want to get Vietnamese officials here to accredit that plant so they can start irradiating our fruit for export. Because of the COVID restrictions they are just not getting any help from the Victorian government to get those Vietnamese officials into Victoria to be able to inspect that plant so they can actually start irradiating fruit for export. What they were telling me out there is that something like 5000 pallets of table grapes will have to be trucked to Brisbane to be irradiated to be exported, which could actually come to Melbourne and go straight out. The same applies to cherries. Cherries are a very valuable crop, very valuable produce. Trucking them all the way to Brisbane and particularly the bouncing along the road does not help the quality of that product. If it could be irradiated here in Victoria, that would be a lot better. So I would urge the government to actually take these issues seriously. Otherwise we are going to have serious problems into the future.

From my own electorate’s point of view, Swan Hill hospital, I think, is one of the hospitals that is highest on the list of those needing a rebuild—no money in the budget. The Swan Hill Needs a New Hospital campaign has been running now for a number of years. The federal government, to their credit, have put $30 million on the table—$10 million each financial year, starting in 2021–22, which is next financial year. They desperately need a budget allocation from the Victorian government to be able to access and free up that $30 million from the commonwealth to go into the hospital. So nothing there this year, and there is very little there for the Maryborough hospital, another major regional hospital that needs funding. There is nothing there basically for the Warragul hospital, another regional hospital that needs funding. Swan Hill does need a new hospital and I would urge the government to make sure there is money in the budget next May, if the Treasurer actually has a budget next May rather than kicking it down the road further. But we desperately need some money for the Swan Hill hospital.

There are a number of CFA stations in my electorate that desperately need funding as well, particularly Leitchville and Rochester, two CFA brigades which very regularly send away strike teams for major campaign fires. They are brigades that are very active but they actually need new fire stations so they can fit the new generation of trucks in. As we know, as trucks have got bigger they need bigger fire stations to hold them. I know the government does not like the CFA volunteers—they want to favour the paid firefighters; they do not like the CFA volunteers—but I would urge the government to support the CFA volunteers and particularly support the volunteers from those brigades who regularly send away strike teams. Having strike teams going away for major campaign fires protects all Victorians, and the least they deserve is to have fire stations and fire trucks that allow them to do that.

Two schools were funded in my electorate, and I congratulate the committees of those two schools for the campaigns they fought to get that money. But we do need other schools funded as well. Again, the record investment supposedly in schools is not getting to my electorate. (Time expired)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (11:21): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I am absolutely delighted to contribute to the budget reply. I am absolutely proud of this government and the fact that a budget is being delivered that is about people—putting people at the centre of our economic recovery. It is a budget that begins with the premise that the recovery from the global pandemic is an absolute priority for our government. This budget delivers on key investments that will see our community recover and come back even stronger and, importantly, not leave anyone behind. As schools return we are making sure that students have the classrooms, libraries and learning spaces they deserve.

In terms of specific initiatives for people in my electorate, this includes $11.6 million for Mill Park Secondary College. Students there will benefit from a new 200-seat performing arts centre. I did a quick visit the other day to give them the news, and they were absolutely delighted. If I could describe them as singing, dancing and the rest, I think they were pretty close to doing that from the news.

This budget is also investing in new bus connections for The Lakes South Morang College. The investment will make it easier for the kids to get to and from school. It will also make it easier for parents juggling work and care. The new service will be available from mid next year. We are also improving the local bus network, with a new service to connect Mernda and Craigieburn. Now, that is important because it will enable students, parents and families who live in the eastern part of Wollert to get a more direct bus service from where they live to the other side of Epping Road, to where the schools are—Edgars Creek Secondary College, for example—plus other amenities. So this is much needed and I am really delighted. All going well, this new service will be available towards the end of next year.

The budget is also delivering funding to acquire land for a community hospital in the City of Whittlesea. That is absolutely something that was very well anticipated and very much supported. Locally a new skills and jobs centre will be established at the North East Link build. That is going to provide onsite advice for locals and others who want to be a part of the project and get some needed jobs and training opportunities and the rest. There will be great opportunities opening up for people in my community.

I also want to highlight a critical aspect of the budget, and that is the support for women. Women have been particularly hard hit by the COVID pandemic’s impact on our economy, and therefore recovery needs to have a particular focus on women. I am really delighted to have the Minister for Women here at the table. I congratulate her for her wonderful work, working together with the Treasurer and the Premier, to make sure that this budget provides a really strong answer and response for women. I know that many women in my own electorate are going to be benefiting well from this. I do not want to unpack all of the elements of that, but one that I do want to highlight is there is a $250 million package for wage subsidies to create about 10 000 jobs to help get people engaged in the workforce and then give them a steady opportunity to be able to look for ongoing work.

About $150 million of that will go towards women, and within that $150 million, $50 million will be dedicated to supporting older women—women over 45, because we know that there are many complex challenges that women in that age category, if you like, particularly face, and homelessness is certainly one of those issues. One of the good ways to help with that is, of course, a job, and this will certainly speak to many of those women.

There are many other parts here that I do want to talk about. Some of these go to some of my own portfolio areas and some are outside of that, but in particular the City of Whittlesea is a priority area for investment in terms of new-build homes and social housing. In fact, we are delivering as a state the biggest investment in public and community housing in Australia ever. This investment is going to build more than 12 000 new homes. This will make sure that Victorians have a place to call home and thousands more Victorians have a job. I know the City of Whittlesea is one of those areas that is a priority area for investment, and I very much look forward to the Minister for Housing—who is a terrific minister and who has been a great advocate and champion for this investment, working with the Treasurer and the Premier to deliver it—coming out and making some really great announcements about how this will benefit communities in my electorate.

We are also investing $797 million to cut the cost of energy bills for Victorians. There are many elements to this, in particular through energy efficiency programs. This will create thousands of jobs. More than 4500 jobs are supported through this initiative and within that is the creation of about 1500 new jobs. This is the biggest energy efficiency investment of any state government ever, and I am absolutely delighted. In fact, energy efficiency is one of those areas where the job multiplier effect is actually really, really strong. It drives a lot of job creation, and I can talk for a long time about that, but I know I have a massive list here and I cannot—

Mr Wynne interjected.

Ms D’AMBROSIO: No, I must desist, even though others would like me to; there is just so much to unpack.

There is a $250 power-saving bonus that will go to more than 950 000 households in Victoria from February next year. It will be available for a year, and will really target those people who need it the most, because we know COVID has meant that more people have had to stay home and are therefore using more of their own power and gas, and of course the bills have been larger. This will target pensioners, aged disability carer payment pensioners, single-parenting payment recipients, and those on JobSeeker and youth allowance. This is going to be a really fantastic way to help them manage those energy bills.

We are also putting more money into the Solar Homes program—a really, really successful one—and an extra 42 000 rooftop solar rebates plus 14 500 solar batteries. We are also getting rid of the postcode restrictions, which I know is a really popular move. All of this is about putting more money back into the pockets of Victorian families and freeing those dollars up so they can do things that really add value to quality of life, and that is what we want to do.

This year we have also recognised the importance of green open spaces for our own physical health and mental health and recovery. That is really, really important. As Victorians spend more time outdoors, we are investing an additional $52 million, targeting particular parks that we know could certainly do with some additional upgrades, welcoming more people that really want to get out as close as possible to home into that open space. It is really fantastic for mental health and a great time for family or even with your dogs. This will include Plenty Gorge Parklands and Hawkstowe Park in my electorate—and I know the member for Yan Yean is very excited about this too, for what it means for her. This will certainly help with that. This is part of our broader $52 million package from this budget to upgrade local parks, as I mentioned. This is on top of the investment we are already making—and I know that the member for Yan Yean will probably chime in again—to deliver the Plenty River Trail. That is $19.3 million.

We are also tackling climate change and tackling emissions. As I mentioned before, the massive $797 million package will actually cut our carbon emissions by more than 22 million tonnes over the next 10 years. That is the equivalent of taking more than 6 million cars off the road for an entire year—that is, more than the number of cars on Victoria’s roads for an entire year.

More emissions reduction targets will come from other spends from this budget, and I will just touch on some of those. We are investing $92.3 million to store carbon in our landscape. Part of that solution will be planting 4 million trees across 6000 hectares of land, and of course we know that there are fantastic jobs that come from all of these activities. There is a further $20.8 million to continue implementing our Climate Change Act 2017 and $27 million for local energy projects. Communities love to come up with fantastic ideas to do their bit to reduce emissions and move to clean energy.

We are also putting a massive $655 million into the broader environment portfolio. It will go towards protecting our beautiful wilderness and improving access to our natural wonders. I do want to say, of that $655 million about $277 million is there for biodiversity support, and I think it is really important for that to be appreciated. This is a massive investment. There are many elements to this too. For example, there is $23 million to establish or to improve Wilsons Prom in terms of the visitor experience but also education. Having families going there and understanding the importance and the beautiful biodiversity of Wilsons Prom is really, really important; we know more people really want to get in there and learn more. It also includes a $6 million investment in establishing a state-of-the-art predator-proof fence, because we know that there are many species that are very vulnerable that are within the Prom now that will benefit tremendously by keeping predator pests out of there. It will also provide a haven to reintroduce other vulnerable species in this unique part of our state. Eastern bristlebirds, potoroos, bandicoots and quolls—these are just some of the species we know are really going to get a fantastic boost to their longevity and sustainability through this effort.

There is a further $80 million to improve iconic locations like the Grampians National Park, Alpine National Park, Cape Conran Coastal Park, Mallacoota Inlet and Point Hicks lighthouse near Croajingolong National Park. You can see from just that list we are putting a lot of support into eastern Victoria, which is still recovering from the absolute devastation of the bushfires that we had. We know that it was an unsurpassed devastation for our natural environment and biodiversity, and of course it was a massive blow to communities in those areas. Other funds are being made available—$10 million to improve water quality, to protect endangered species and to support the Yellingbo conservation area, something that we are very proud to have delivered as a government, and an additional $29 million on top of the $22.5 million we have already put towards an immediate response for biodiversity recovery as a result of the bushfires. So it is meaningful work that really will give our fantastic species a fighting chance of surviving, recovering and hopefully becoming sustainable. There are lots of ways of describing that, but I really need to get moving.

I do want to talk quickly about fuel and fire management. The budget invests $46 million extra to improve fire risk management for the coming fire season and beyond, and I am absolutely proud of all of the wonderful people that are part of the Forest Fire Management Victoria family, who are always at the front line, the first to respond, when we are talking about fires that start on public land. Many of the fires that we experience do start on public land, and they are heroes—they are absolute heroes. This goes towards making their jobs easier and improving fire risk management for the coming fire season and beyond.

There is an additional $35.8 million to build and upgrade almost 1500 kilometres of strategic fuel breaks in targeted locations. That is about protecting communities and the environment better, our special places where we do have fantastic ecosystems. Being more strategic in terms of the management of fuel is really, really important. Traditional owners are also receiving significant funds to assist them in being able to bring to life their own visions and plans for how they manage public land that is within their domain.

There are further elements. Marine and coastal—$16 million there to assist with coastal protection and seawall repairs at Lakes Entrance and Mallacoota, and coastal protection around Apollo Bay, the Great Ocean Road and Altona et cetera. I have not even touched on waste and recycling. There is a further $41 million in support for the Great Ocean Road’s fantastic coastal walking trail first stage from Fairhaven to Grey River, and I absolutely commend this bill to the house. (Time expired)

Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (11:36): I am pleased to rise this morning to make a contribution in relation to the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020, which is of course the state budget. I note from the outset that it has been about 18 months since we have had a state budget, so it was good to finally see one. Despite the disastrous set of numbers that it is, it was good to see it last Tuesday. I note too that this is a cognate debate with the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020, and I will make some more comments about that later on.

I note that the budget papers are entitled ‘Putting people first’, and I think the correct title for this year’s budget should be ‘Paying the price for Labor’s failures’. All Victorians can now see why this government delayed the release of this dreadful budget for as long as it could. What we can now all see is that we have the most disastrous set of numbers and the biggest financial mess in Victoria’s history. The important question for all Victorians is: why is that so? Effectively there are two reasons: first of all, the terrible failures in the hotel quarantine system which allowed the COVID-19 virus to escape into the community unchecked, and it wreaked havoc wherever it went. Secondly, there was the contact-tracing failure. Again, we have been shown to be very deficient in that area and the cost to the community of that deficiency has been enormous. Those failures combined have resulted in almost 800 people—800 Victorians—losing their lives. I put on record again my sympathy to the families and friends of those people that have suffered these tragic losses during this time. There have also been thousands of small businesses that have gone under and hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs. There have been untold mental health issues. There have been school students with a compromised year of learning, and a whole range of other extraordinary, negative impacts upon our community, including massive issues with loneliness and isolation, particularly amongst certain cohorts including some older members of the community.

We can see that this is a budget from a Labor government. We know Labor cannot manage money, and I will be expanding on that particularly in relation to major projects during the course of my contribution. Today I want to focus on three key areas: first of all, to make some general comments; secondly, look at some specific examples from the budget; and thirdly, look at the implications for my electorate, the Forest Hill district.

Firstly in relation to unemployment, we know we have got a crisis here in Victoria at the moment. We have got 7.4 per cent of the population unemployed and we have got a further 13 per cent underemployed. That is basically one in five people looking for work or looking for more work. We have got hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs. We can see that that has been documented in the budget papers if we look at budget paper 4, page 17. We can see the unemployment rate in the 2019–20 forecast was 5.4 per cent. The 2020–21 forecast is a shocking 7.75 per cent. The next year is 7 per cent. The 2022–23 projection is 6.25 per cent and the 2023–24 projection is 5.75 per cent. We can see there that there is a jobs crisis here in Victoria, and in my view and in the view of my colleagues on this side of the house, this budget has not done enough to address that very serious issue for the broader Victorian community.

We can also see there on that same table, key economic assumptions on page 17 of budget paper 4, the real gross state product, and we can see that the current, 2019–20, forecast is 0.25 per cent, the 2020-21 forecast is minus 4 per cent and then there is this remarkable jump in the next year to 2021–22 of 7.75 per cent. So that is an 11.8 per cent turnaround, and I think that will be marvellous if we get it. But I think this is going to be as rubbery as most of Labor’s estimates in budgets for many, many years, and it is probably very unlikely that we are going to see that. I hope we do, but I think that is going to be very unlikely. We can see in the next year, 2022–23, it drops back to a more reasonable 3.25 per cent and finishes in the out years at 3 per cent, so we already see there some significant optimism built into that particular set of numbers.

If we think about capital works, this is where we have got the situation, as other members have talked about, where we are missing a whole budget paper. In my hand I have got the 2019–20 budget paper 4, which is the ‘State Capital Program’, a very weighty tome of some 185-odd pages, and that goes through the various capital works items and gives a whole range of important information. That budget paper is missing this year, and I think that is to the Treasurer’s great shame that that is the case, because there is no reason that that should not be prepared. He gave some lame excuse the other day on the radio, but that is just all it is; it is a lame excuse. There is no reason that can justify it except the reason that this government does not want those numbers, the state capital program numbers, to be in the public domain. They want to continue the cover-up in relation to the capital projects that they have got underway because we know that many of them, indeed most of them, are a complete disaster, and we can see that even today in the Herald Sun. Their front page is headed up ‘Show us the money’:

Plea to reveal project overruns & delays as blowouts top $6.4bn

Cost blowouts on 10 of Victoria’s key infrastructure projects, including the West Gate and Metro tunnels, have risen to more than $6.45bn …

… The information was left out of the budget for the first time in years …

But sources close to the government have detailed blowouts of $6.45bn on just 10 projects, including $2bn on the Metro Tunnel and $1.2bn on the West Gate Tunnel.

And that goes on. On page 10 of the Herald Sun, ‘Blowouts bonanza’, it just keeps going on and on. So I am glad that some of that information is getting out into the public domain, because it is important information. One of the issues that the government seems to pride itself on is spending taxpayers money willy-nilly. They put it into these capital projects that are not managed properly and that end up with just horrendous blowouts, and I will be coming to some more of those in just a few moments.

But I did just want to make a note in relation to a recent report, November 2020, from the Grattan Institute entitled The Rise of Megaprojects. The fact is that one of the key issues in relation to megaprojects that go badly is that:

Projects announced before governments are prepared to formally commit are also particularly risky …

…

Governments should rethink major projects that have been promised or are under construction, particularly those announced without a business case … Megaprojects should be a last, not a first resort.

We can see there from a think tank like them that that is what they have concluded, and it goes on. I will not have time to quote it all, but on page 32 of that report it refers specifically in box 3 to:

Melbourne’s suburban rail loop was promised without appropriate scrutiny

And I have talked about this in this place before, but basically:

The project did not appear on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list. Infrastructure Victoria did not recommend the project, and was not consulted before the Government’s announcement. Neither was Cabinet, nor the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport, and Resources. Instead the project had been worked on by Development Victoria, reportedly with the knowledge of only four ministers.

So this is going to be a case study on a financial disaster. We can see that already by the amount of money the government is allocating to it even in this budget, but the reality is that they have got absolutely no idea how much this is going to cost. As the Shadow Treasurer said earlier this morning, it could have the potential to cost a further $150 billion, which of course would be in my view unsustainable for the state of Victoria.

If we turn to the results from transactions, we can see in budget paper 2, page 69, table 4.3, ‘Summary operating statement for the general government sector’. We can see there of course the bottom line. For the current year the actuals show a deficit of $6.5 billion. And then we get into the bloodbath. The budget for the 2020–21 year has a deficit of $23.281 billion; the 2021–22 year, $13.1 billion; the 2022–23 year, $6.7 billion; and the 2023–24, $5.9 billion. So there are accumulated deficits over the forward estimates of just under $49 billion. Of course that has got to be funded, and that is why we are seeing our debt blow out. I will come back to that in a moment as well. But what we can see there is the fact that these numbers—and I have referred to them in my previous year’s budget contributions—inevitably end up being understatements. Heaven help all Victorians when we get understatements when the numbers are as bad as they are in that particular set of numbers I just read out.

It was interesting that the Auditor-General in his report, Auditor-General’s Report on the Annual Financial Report of the State of Victoria: 2019–20 of November 2020, which was tabled in this place earlier in the week, said on page 3 in relation to the current year’s deficit of $6.539 billion:

From the AFR, we can identify around $4 billion of GGS—

that is general government sector—

net costs associated with COVID-19, leaving $2.5 billion of the net operating deficit without clear attribution to COVID-19.

He then goes on:

With the pandemic continuing past 30 June 2020, it is too early to judge how this result will affect the long-term financial sustainability of the state.

The point I am making there is the fact that we have got a situation where, as we already knew earlier this year, the state budget was in deficit before COVID came along. It was in deficit before the bushfires happened as well in the early part of this year, and that came out in the quarterly financial statements late last year. What we can see is that we had the Labor government up to its old tricks of mismanaging the finances and creating deficits before the COVID disaster or any other disasters hit the state.

Also, hidden away in budget paper 4, chapter 6, we have got a list of contingent liabilities. I was looking at that for a range of reasons, and I noted that in 2020 there were 12 items on that list and in 2021, in the current year’s budget, we have got 21 items that are contingent liabilities. In other words, those are liabilities that the state is unable to quantify but which are coming down the pipeline for all Victorians to bear the weight of. For the current year we have got a range of class actions from Victorian businesses and Victorian residents and other claim notifications regarding COVID, but on top of that we have got the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants, we have got planning scheme compensation, the Metro Tunnel project tunnel and stations and a range of other matters, including some ongoing matters, as I said, from previous years. The quantifiable amount of contingent liabilities that are in the financial statements is $16 billion. Of course that is not booked in the accounts; that is noted in the notes. That compares to $12.8 billion in the 2020 year—enormous problems there for the state of Victoria, and as I said, that is not even brought to account in the P and L, so to speak, yet. So that is a disaster.

I said at the start this is a cognate debate in relation to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020, and I want to put on record my thanks to everybody who helps run the Parliament. This is not an exhaustive list, but we have got the clerks, Hansard, attendants, security, PSOs, library staff, catering staff, gardening, cleaning and maintenance staff and other people that I have not been able to list—but there are a lot of other people. We have got our electorate office staff that work so hard to support each and every one of us in our important roles. We have got other staff that help us out in various ways, and I want to put on the record my thanks to each and every one of them.

In relation to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill I do want to note that page 14 of that bill deals with the funding for the department of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, and I note that the funding for the IBAC has decreased by 4.5 per cent—so almost $2 million. Now, that is a scandalous situation; it is a shameful situation. You just wonder whether the government is defunding or reducing the funding for IBAC because so many investigations are currently underway in relation to matters to do with the government itself. That would be an absolutely shameful thing, but I do not put it past this government to do that—to try to clip the wings of IBAC so they cannot be put under further scrutiny.

There are a range of other matters that I will not have time to go into, suffice to say while we had a number of schools in the Forest Hill district that received some funding, sadly a number of schools for which I have campaigned for funding for many years again missed out. One of them was just for $250 000 for a car park. It is a very mean-spirited thing, in my view, that the government could not even fund that. They funded a school literally over the road for multiple millions of dollars, but they could not find $250 000 out of this colossal budget to support that school. I think that is a disgrace.

The level of debt of $155 billion is a great concern to me and will be to all Victorians as well. This is a bad budget for Victorians.

Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (11:51): It is fantastic to rise and speak on the appropriation bills today. Look, there is not much I can agree on with the member for Forest Hill, but we all can agree that people who work in Parliament are fantastic, and I think that was well said.

Unfortunately I think maybe the opposition are looking at their contingent liabilities in a different way at the moment. Well, they are not here; they might be looking for who they might invest in—a little bit of time, get a couple of votes, get the numbers—because things are not looking good at the moment, so maybe those contingent liabilities are something to think about. Maybe you have got somewhere to go, member for Forest Hill, right now.

Anyway, I would like to start my budget reply by thanking my community for all their sacrifices during this period. They have got us where we are today. I would like to pay tribute to every single worker who put themselves on the line, whether it be at the front line or even at home, to battle this crisis. When the Andrews Labor government was elected we said we were putting people first, and as our state begins its recovery from this global pandemic—which has been terrible, is still going for many countries and will be for such a long time ahead—we will continue to put people first, as our first priority. This budget delivers on investments that will see our community recover, not just to the status quo but to being stronger economically and socially as well.

In Frankston we had a fairly big budget, so I want to start locally. Everyone knows the Labor government is very committed to TAFEs. We are committed to getting people the skills they need for the jobs they want. Recently in Frankston we completed stage 1 of the Frankston Chisholm TAFE upgrade. The flagship Chisholm TAFE of the south-east services the south-east, the peninsula. I have been there many times, and it is great to see these young people—and some older people reskilling—getting the skills they need. It makes me really jealous. Sometimes I want to go back in time and maybe get a trade, do a bit of welding or something like that. It looks pretty useful; it looks fun as well.

But we have actually funded stage 2 of Chisholm TAFE, which is a further $67.6 million. That will provide a modern multilevel learning facility for the students there. I know people were going crazy about this yesterday, hearing this. I was in a Frankston Revitalisation Board meeting, and I had people saying, ‘Is it really happening? Is it really happening?’. I said, ‘Look, I’m smiling, but I can’t say much, if you understand what I am saying. You know, I hope—I’ve got a lot of hope; I’ve got faith’. When they found out via Facebook or via my phone call they were absolutely ecstatic.

Speaking of education, we have seen a different format of education during this crisis, and amazingly this budget delivers the single biggest investment ever in schools in our state. For Frankston that means $4.11 million to upgrade Karingal Primary School. Now, this is a strong school community. In fact if my memory serves me correctly, they went out and they got their own master plan done because they did not think things were moving fast enough. They are strong, they are motivated and they were really inspiring, so I am very happy that that community have got what they need to deliver the best for their students.

Now, I made a phone call yesterday to Scott Tucker, who is the principal of Frankston Special Developmental School—a school I used to work at when I was a special developmental school teacher, a school I fell in love with. I still miss working there. It was amazing, some of the goals set for kids daily, weekly, monthly, small or large. It is such a flexible and challenging learning environment. But I thought I had to call an ambulance for Scotty yesterday. Because I rang him up and I said, ‘Scott, are you sitting down?’ And he said, ‘Yeah, I am’. He had no idea what was coming. I said, ‘Scott, the state budget provides 12 point’, and I left it a little bit—I just let it hang—‘$12.63 million to redevelop your school according to the master plan that you have been fighting for. Scott went silent and I thought, ‘Oh, jeez, what’s going on here? I might have to get the oxygen out’. I said, ‘Take the pen and write the dollar sign and the one, the two, the decimal point, six, three so you do not get off the phone and doubt it. It’s $12.63 million from the Andrews Labor government’. The thing that really hits home is that these were the schools that were forgotten for many years. They were just forgotten. They were second-class citizens, and in Frankston and Victoria we are changing that.

Also, Nepean School is dear to my heart. I have taught there before. It is also dear to the member for Carrum’s heart. We cannot get their school song out of our head. I am not going to sing it now because I do not want to put in your head too. It is an ear worm of a song. It is a beautiful school. They are going to be provided with $2.84 million to upgrade their school as well. When we came to government we had a school that had toilets for disability use that basically had shower curtains. It was a shame, and we have changed that. We have gradually changed things at this school. I am so, so proud of it. Another thing I am very proud of is that all this investment in education across the state will provide up 6400 jobs in construction, which is quite amazing as well.

The other day I think I might have put it on Facebook that I had a tear in my eye when the minister came out and announced $1.6 billion for students with disability, which basically doubles the number of students receiving assistance at the moment. This is an absolute game changer. Who is not in an electorate where parents are coming in and saying, ‘I’m 1 point off the funding. My deaf child is 1 point off the funding’. But the whole thing about being deaf is that it is fluid and it changes, and it is going to change. There are so many examples, and this helps those people. The interesting thing about this budget is there something for everyone, because everyone has made those sacrifices and we need to bring our economy back stronger than ever.

Also, as part of a $20 million package, funding will be there for us to continue revitalising the CBD of Frankston. We have had the Frankston Revitalisation Board, which has worked very closely with the council and other major stakeholders: Monash, Chisholm, Peninsula Health. I do not want to miss anyone out, but there are a lot of major stakeholders on there—South East Water. This investment builds on a previous investment which has been sought and been successful in changing the CBD of Frankston and some of the perceptions around that as well. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Frankston Revitalisation Board.

This next one is a big one, and it is huge for Frankston. Here we go, Acting Speaker Kilkenny. I am glad you are in the chair. You, I know, will be very excited about this. We have had members of the opposition in this chamber, out and about, writing letters to people in my electorate saying we would not do this: ‘Frankston couldn’t do this, Frankston couldn’t get it done’. Last budget we delivered $62 million for planning et cetera for the Frankston Hospital. The project is more than half a billion: $562 million. Anyone who knows about this knows that when you a build major project it is not delivered in one fell swoop. This budget proves those people in the opposition wrong. This budget provides the half-a-billion-dollar balance to get Frankston Hospital’s redevelopment done, and that is new maternity, new mental health, women’s clinic, children’s clinic, paediatrics, 120 new beds and 30 new emergency beds. Soon we will literally be able to see that growing out of the ground in Frankston, and it is amazing. I know it means a lot to your community, Acting Speaker. It means a lot to the large health catchment in that area as well. But there were people that said we could not do it, and to those people I would say, ‘Just watch us’. I will be putting photos up so often on Facebook so you can see it, so we can celebrate and you can see how it is done.

I did have the pleasure—or displeasure, I guess—of hearing the Shadow Treasurer speak about how important budgets are. We have heard the member for Forest Hill talk about money management, and I even heard the Shadow Treasurer talk about business cases on 3AW the other day. The quote, as I remember it, was, ‘Neil, no reasonable person would sign up to a transport project without seeing the business case’. Now, in Frankston you can sit anywhere, stand anywhere, point in any direction through 360°, and you will blindly point out something that Labor has built in the past six years. We have been on the go. We have not stopped moving. Unfortunately that is not the case for the opposition, and I think now we know why.

As they say, leadership is about action. It is not about a budget speech, it is not about just talking about things or sending out postcards to people and it is not a position you take on something. It is actually action. I was very keen when I heard that the state opposition at the time and the Liberal federal government had made a commitment to the whole electorate that they would start an electrification and duplication project and they would get this done.

Mr Wakeling: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, it is a wideranging debate, but it is not an opportunity to attack the opposition. It is an opportunity for the member to talk about the budget, and I would ask you to draw him back to the budget.

Mr EDBROOKE: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, no-one has attacked the opposition. I think you might be being a little bit too sensitive. We are just going to talk about some facts here.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Kilkenny): There is no point of order.

Mr EDBROOKE: We will get to the facts. The promise was made that a shovel-ready major project would begin in 2019, without having any basic facts, a business case, agreement with local councils or any of the facts at all, and we have just learned that it has been completely botched. The business case that people should have waited for has come out and said that this project would be around $1.5 billion. So the $550 million that had been touted as building this obviously would not build it. We have found out that 10 hectares of native vegetation, possibly green wedge as well, would need to be bulldozed, home acquisitions—all these things we did not know. But this was a shovel-ready project in 2019. This is not the way to deliver major projects. This is not the way it is done.

Key stakeholders are in disagreement about this project. You have got to do the hard yards, folks. You have got to actually talk to people and get people at the table agreeing. The reality of this project is that if the state had blindly agreed to this project without a business case, we would have essentially achieved nothing. The project could not have been built, but for some people I think it is not about actually achieving good public transport outcomes. It is not actually about building the Baxter electrification and duplication project; it is about getting a sign-off so that some lobby groups who are very desperately lobbying the state government—and maybe some green wedge owners—can see their land rezoned, sold off and make a massive windfall. I am sorry; that is just not how we do things. We do not bulldoze communities like that.

As I said at the start, this is about leading with actions, not just with conversation or statements. I look forward to the federal government’s continued commitment to this project, but if they want to see how it is done, come to Frankston. We will show you how it is done; I will take you on a tour. It will take a couple of days to get around to all our projects, but I will take you on a tour and shout you a coffee. It will be a good time.

We have also heard opposition members talk about how this budget only delivers for people who wear hard hats or fluoro vests, and nothing could be further from the point. If you go to school; if you are a parent that needs free kinder; if you are a parent that needs more after-school care; if you are part of a sporting club; if you have a disability or a learning difficulty or you are a carer; if you teach in a school; if you attend TAFE; if you are buying a home; if you even need a roof over your head; if you want better roads; if you want better public transport; if you need a job; if you suffer from entrenched inequality or you just believe in equality, whether that be sexuality, gender or race; if you have been affected by family violence; if you want good health care or you are a healthcare worker; if you own a business; if you are a woman; if you are a traditional owner; if you are a first responder; if you are a musician or an artist; if you are a regional community member; even if you just want secure work, this budget is for you. And especially if you believe that our mental health system is broken and is not serving our community as it should, this budget is for you.

Now, Acting Speaker, you are aware of the impact that the Andrews Labor government has had on our region in Bayside over the past six years. It has been massive, it is unprecedented and it has really got people turning heads: ‘Wow! How can all this be done?’. I get this every day. Essentially it is just about putting your nose to the grindstone, and I know you know that. So I want to thank every community member in Frankston for putting their faith in me to represent them and deliver for another year, the sixth year of me ensuring that this government delivers like nothing else for our community. It is true to say of course that not everyone in our community votes Labor, and that is fine, but it is also true to say that this Labor government supports everyone in our community. This is a budget to repair, to recover, to make our community stronger—stronger than ever before. It is a well-balanced budget. This is a government that puts people first, and we are getting it done. I commend the bills to the house.

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (12:05): The year 2020 has been a year like no other, and therefore this budget was always going to have to be a budget like no other. In some ways it is a really tough time to be in government, and I do not envy this Treasurer. Shutting down an entire society, an entire economy, due to a pandemic of course comes with very real consequences, and it will take a lot of work and a lot of spending to heal this pain in Victoria.

But in other ways this is actually a golden time to be in government because from crisis comes opportunity, and this pandemic has given the government a once-in-a-generation chance to make the most visionary changes to our society and our economy in the last 100 years. This government has been given this unique moment in history, and they have now been given this social licence to fund big, bold projects. That is not just projects that create jobs and stimulate the economy but also projects that solve some of the complex problems that have plagued our society for decades, problems like homelessness, rising inequality, climate change and environmental destruction, problems which governments have known about for a long time but have not tackled, because they have never had the courage to spend the amount of money needed to deal with them or to tackle the vested interests creating them.

I am pleased that here in Victoria the government has used this moment. They have refused to bow down to the right-wing agenda of austerity, which cuts spending and cuts the things that people rely on the most, and instead they have had the courage to borrow big and to invest big. Of course that is what the Greens have been calling for in our Green New Deal, and therefore we applaud it. Now, I expected that sentence to receive howls of abuse from Labor MPs across the chamber as it usually does because so many Labor MPs are somehow offended both when the Greens criticise them but also when we praise them. But I have to say that that is a real shame, because right now this pandemic has shown us the value of working together. It has shown us the value of a kind of politics, a politics where all sides work together for a common goal, and that is how the Greens have approached this year, by supporting the government’s health-led response to the pandemic, even when we were under attack from right-wing politicians and fear campaigns. It is also how we approach this budget: with support.

While this Labor government may never use the words ‘a Green New Deal’ and they are never likely to give credit to the Greens for the things that they announce, the influence of the Greens in Victoria and our work over the last several years can be seen right here in this budget. In fact many of the projects in the budget are things the Greens took to the last election and plans we released over the last nine months and spoke directly with the government about, even down to some of the almost identical language, from the Big Housing Build to the recycling revolution. These ideas now adopted in the Victorian budget include the Big Battery, a big investment in household energy efficiency, minimum standards for rental properties—something we introduced many years ago—a big build of social housing, upgrading our power grid, 100 new trams, a new recycling innovation centre and new recycling plants, a big investment in our caring workforce and a train to the airport.

We give the credit to the government, the ministers and the public servants for the incredible amount of work done to release this budget and for including so much across so many different sectors. The credit is also due to those who fought for these ideas for many years and who were told that they were impossible. You were proved right: the change is possible. The economist Milton Friedman once said:

Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.

While I very much do not agree with Friedman’s extreme right-wing, free market world view—I never thought I would see myself quoting him in this place—the idea behind that quote is actually correct. When the pandemic hit, governments were looking around for ideas that would both create jobs and deal with some of the fault lines exposed by the pandemic, and they found them in the ideas seeded by progressive organisations and policy thinkers—yes, including the Greens—who worked to develop and socialise these ideas over many years, even when they were politically unpopular or difficult. I often say that when a government builds something it is the minister who gets his or her name on the plaque out the front but it is the community organisation, the activist or the local woman who spent years agitating, meeting her MP and writing to the local paper who really deserves the credit.

In this case I want to thank all those people, those organisations and those activists who spent years fighting tooth and nail to put public housing on the top of the political agenda. To those who fought for stronger action on climate change and renewable energy, even when they were told that only slow, incremental change was possible; to those who fought for more public transport investment when they were told they should be happy with just a few more trams or a small upgrade here or there; and to those who fought to recognise the work of women and people in caring professions and insecure work even when they were told it was not worth it because the tide was against them—you laid the groundwork so that when the crisis hit these ideas that once seemed politically impossible all of a sudden became not just possible but desirable and ultimately inevitable.

Overall this is a historic investment in our state, and I believe that it will make Victorians’ lives better. I particularly want to acknowledge the big investment in renewable energy in this budget, something that is really excellent to see. It is starting to feel like we are about to see a significant shift in the politics around climate and energy in this country, at least at a state and territory level. It gives me hope that we may still be able to avert some of the worst impacts of the climate crisis. The next step of course needs to be stopping our state funding the gas industry and making sure that we actually develop a proper plan, which we do not have, to transition communities and workers out of coal and to do it fast.

I also want to acknowledge the big commitment to social housing, but as a number of academics pointed out in an opinion piece in today’s Age, it is sad that it seems that this announcement will do little or nothing to actually increase public housing. If this is the case, it will be a sad admission that this Labor government is walking away from public housing once and for all. I hope this is not the case, but I fear that it is. The Greens will keep fighting for public housing residents, as they have always done, and their right to safe, secure, well-maintained homes, just like any Victorian tenant deserves.

In general, as the member for Frankston acknowledged in his contribution, this budget tries to include something for everyone, and in most cases that is great. In some cases unfortunately it is not. For example, we do not support $11 million of Victorians’ money being given to VicForests to help them log what remains of our precious native forests after the summer’s bushfires, exacerbating our biodiversity and threatened species crisis. We do not support more than $5 million of taxpayer funds being given to the hunting lobby to help promote and support duck hunting and other forms of hunting animals. We do not support more than $5 million being spent to help gas drilling happen across this state, completely at odds with the renewable energy investments we are making. While there is some money in the budget for environmental projects and restoration, the vast majority of it is dedicated to tourism and infrastructure rather than that core conservation and restoration work that we need to see more of in this space, especially after we have lost so much in the fires.

We would have liked to see this government finally tackle some of the big structural issues in this budget, like broader tax reform. It is disappointing to see that this once-in-a-generation opportunity was missed, because we may not get it again. The state’s continued reliance on stamp duty and gambling taxes is simply not sustainable financially or socially. As this budget demonstrates, stamp duty is very volatile, with a 25 per cent drop this financial year alone, and the forecasts show we will not return to pre-COVID levels until 2022–23. We can no longer just rely on our city getting bigger and bigger to fuel our stamp duty revenue; we need to be smarter about where economic growth comes from. We need to do it in a sustainable way, and we need to make sure that Victoria has what it needs to provide the services it needs into the future. Stamp duty, honestly, is really just an outdated tax. It encourages people to stay in bigger homes, and it discourages them from moving into different accommodation when their circumstances change. Therefore it pushes house prices up for everyone and locks people out of the housing market, especially the young and young families.

Despite dropping some hints earlier this year that it was open to the idea of reforming stamp duty, the government has disappointingly decided not to proceed with this shift away from an inefficient stamp duty towards transitioning to a broad-based land tax. This is a shift that the Greens-Labor government is already implementing in the ACT and it is one the New South Wales government has indicated it will move to as well. It would help make housing more affordable as well as providing a much more stable revenue base in these uncertain times. The government has all but admitted that stamp duty is a barrier to affordable housing given that it has instituted a 50 per cent reduction in stamp duty for new homes and a 25 per cent discount for existing homes until mid next year—but we need long-term reform in this space, not a short-term approach.

Another progressive and fair tax reform the government has overlooked again is the Greens proposal for a land rezoning tax. Not only would such a tax generate revenue, but it would also remove the incentive for corruption in land deals that is keeping IBAC so busy at the moment. It would mean fewer fancy lunches for ministers—maybe that is why it is not being reformed.

It is disappointing the government did not have the courage to use the opportunity presented by this budget for these broader reforms. In fact the only new tax measure in this budget is a tax for people who drive electric cars. At a time when we need to be doing everything we can to reduce emissions and when the sector that has the fastest rising emissions in Victoria is actually transport, why on earth is this government making electric cars more expensive? Around the world countries are doing everything they can to make them cheaper and easier to access, including conservative governments like the UK, because they know that reducing emissions from transport is vital to stopping runaway climate change. Unfortunately Australia is already far behind in the uptake of electric vehicles. In Australia electric vehicles represent only 0.6 per cent of new vehicle sales; the average around the rest of the world is five times that. This is a short-sighted tax. It will see many, many Victorians scratching their heads, wondering why we are taking such good steps forward in renewables yet at the same time taking these bizarre steps backwards in climate action like the electric vehicles tax and like our investment in the expansion of gas drilling across the state.

Finally, I would like to make some remarks about my local electorate of Melbourne. This budget has been generally good for the people of Melbourne. We have had commitments to a new primary school in North Melbourne, something the community has been calling for for years, to ease overcrowding at the existing North Melbourne Primary. We have had significant commitments to rebuild the Royal Melbourne Hospital and significant commitments to our medical research precinct. This precinct and the people who work there are at the heart of my electorate. They are a huge asset, not just to my electorate but to the state and in fact the whole country. We have had $24 million allocated to Mount Alexander College, which although it is just on the other side of Racecourse Road, outside my electorate, is great news for local Kensington families who send their kids there. We have seen money for safety upgrades to Racecourse Road, which is something that we have campaigned for, for better protection for pedestrians and cyclists, and we have also seen money to rebuild Dynon Road Bridge over the Moonee Ponds Creek. We have seen funds for North Melbourne and Richmond football clubs—for North Melbourne to upgrade their facilities for their AFLW players and for Richmond for the Korin Gamadji Institute as well as the Bachar Houli Academy, incredible contributions to diversity in our state.

We have also seen a number of other statewide initiatives, like free kinder for a year and 100 new trams, which will help people in my electorate. Although I am disappointed to see the rollout of accessible tram stops does not seem to have been funded, so people on routes 57 and 59 still will not be able to get on a tram at all if they use a wheelchair.

Now, we do not know all the details of these announcements yet. I have met with the Treasurer, and we will be following these up. We will keep an eye on them and work with local communities to make sure that they are delivered in a way that works for the community and that proper consultation happens, especially related to the school builds and upgrades. We are sad to see that some of our other schools, especially Kensington Primary and Uni High, did not receive funding in the budget. Kensington Primary especially is in dire need of safety and maintenance upgrade works, and we will keep working with them over the next few months to ensure they are included in the next budget.

I also note that more can and should be done to fund and support our First Nations people. As the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service has pointed out, Aboriginal people continue to be over-represented in our prison system and have received a disproportionate number of fines throughout the COVID restrictions, and the decision by this Labor government not to invest public funds into Aboriginal community-controlled services like VALS is disappointing.

But this budget truly has come at a historic moment, and as we all strive to recover from the pain and damage wrought by this pandemic it will take a lot of effort and a lot of money to rebuild. This budget starts that rebuilding process, and I look forward to working with the government and ministers and my community to continue to support this work.

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (12:21): We have been on a journey without maps. In this new age of broken certainties we needed a plan, unity and hope to find the way to turn adversity into opportunity. We have been participants in a global trial-and-error experiment against a new virus so virulent it became a pandemic, destroying lives and livelihoods, triggering the world’s worst recession since the Great Depression. Victoria’s plan to suppress the coronavirus and revive the economy culminates this week. COVID-19 will be officially declared to be eliminated in Victoria if there are no new infections tomorrow. That is a remarkable turnaround thanks to overwhelming community support for the strategy that was provided, and this was the unity required.

After a devastating outbreak and confronting restrictions, hope is being restored. Victoria’s highest spending budget sets the state up for economic revival and combines meaningful investments to reimagine our future. This is the dual purpose of this budget. This is a strategy from the World Bank and also the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He had been clear about the economic prescription to deal with these unprecedented times. In his own words, as the Treasurer quoted in his speech:

… it is a change that is entirely manageable and affordable and it’s the right thing to do …

So that is what the Andrews government has done. It is a big-picture vision on how we actually address the problems that we have to confront and how we build our future, and there has been some criticism from the opposition about, you know, ‘Where is the wealth creation? Where are the ideas on what’s going to happen next?’.

I did want to address that matter, because in the budget there is $2 billion for the Breakthrough Victoria Fund, and this is of international significance. It is the first of its kind in Australia, and as Victoria recovers from the pandemic and builds its economy, the Labor government is driving further investment in our research and development sector. So these are the new jobs of the future and it is how we harness the new economic engine room that we have and how we coordinate that. This $2 billion fund will be invested into industries and create a pipeline of more than 15 700 jobs. It will drive investment in research and innovation and growth in key industries such as health and life sciences, agrifood, advanced manufacturing, clean energy and digital technologies. That will have a multiplier effect over time, so this is the big-picture vision. This is what is critically needed right now, and this has been built up over a long period of time. Our institutional clout is critical.

The fund will draw on Victoria’s key innovation and employment precincts, including Parkville, Arden-Macauley, Fishermans Bend, La Trobe Bundoora and Monash Clayton, fostering collaboration between industry and research partners and creating jobs, so it is the triple-helix strategy. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, one of our premium institutes for research and a world leader, is one of a number of institutes located in this Parkville precinct, which is the beating heart of Australia’s medical research. It has the highest concentration of life science research and development excellence in the country. Victoria’s medical research sector supports more than 30 000 jobs across institutes, universities and industry, with more than 40 per cent of Australian-based biotechnology and medical technology companies calling Melbourne home.

The establishment of the Breakthrough Victoria Fund complements the $210 million boost to medical research and the new Australian institute for infectious disease, which also received funding in this year’s budget. This was an allocation from the Victorian government of $155 million. It was put on the table, and it is an invitation for the Australian government to join us in this quest. It has been a humbling privilege to be the Parliamentary Secretary for Medical Research and to work with people of this international calibre and what they have been able to achieve.

What we are trying to do again is to build on this sector, if you think about even just the location and then its international significance. So you have got this opportunity now for the federal government to partner up. I have suggested in the past that there is an opportunity, with the Medical Research Future Fund rising to $20 billion, and that there should be an infectious disease mission, and that would be one way specifically to find the money to provide this safety and security so that we do not have another outbreak or another epidemic. What is critical as well is that this would be founded on the Doherty Institute, named after our Nobel Prize winner Peter Doherty, and it would have the Burnet Institute as part of that. It has the University of Melbourne, it has the Royal Melbourne Hospital and it has CSL—the critical company in that if we do get a vaccine, it will be manufactured in Broadmeadows by CSL. Here is how we can do it: have the brains trust in this area and have the manufacturing arm in Broadmeadows. That is how you can put it all together.

Then there is the chance to reach out to the great southern hub, to have Monash University and CSIRO, separated only by Innovation Walk, and then connect down to Geelong where we have the only centre in the Southern Hemisphere that examines how viruses translate from animals to humans, which is what happened with the coronavirus and previously with SARS and MERS. There has been this investment over a long period of time by governments. It has been bipartisan, but first of all the Cain government and then the Bracks and Brumby governments were right at the forefront. The Andrews government is showing this further leadership on how we can do that.

If you think of this sector, we could have one of the anchors being Australia’s infectious disease institute. Then we have the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, and this is where Joe Biden came as the vice-president. Hopefully the invitation would be there for him again to come if he takes up the Prime Minister’s offer to come for the 70th anniversary of ANZUS on 1 September next year. It would seem fitting and appropriate that he come here again to make this connection, and that is a key relationship between the Premier and the President-elect. That is how we can build further connections with the White House and expand on this, because one of the key things that we were able to get out of the last visit was the exchange of the records—depersonalised—of 60 000 cancer patients out of Victoria. It was really enlightening to realise that we have a better system here in Victoria to collaborate, to use the data, to mine the data. We were able to do it in this way—protecting people’s privacy of course—to get it to some of the best and brightest scientists in America. That is about fast-tracking discoveries and breakthroughs that will change lives and save lives. That is part of what we have been able to do through our medical research sector and through our innovation and through our science.

There have been suggestions in other contributions about how these ideas come together. It takes a long time, but I was delighted as the member for Broadmeadows that we had multibillion-dollar investments for new jobs and homes in the state district of Broadmeadows culminating within days after years of trying to provide them and saying, ‘Here’s the vision. Here’s the plan. Here’s the advocacy’ and trying to bring them together. Broadmeadows is defined as a priority under the Victorian government’s historic $5.3 billion investment—Australia’s biggest ever—in affordable and social housing. This is a remarkable change, and this is dealing with the issue of inequality and how we provide better opportunity for people.

We have the Australian government also investing $1 billion in CSL for life-saving vaccines. Prime Minister Scott Morrison came to Broadmeadows to make that announcement, and that vindicates the long-term strategy that we have had to designate this precinct for advanced manufacturing. I was happy to publish that four years ago in Creating Opportunity: Postcodes of Hope to try and designate it—invest in the best. CSL is one of our leading companies. This is how it has now come to the fore again. If there are vaccines made anywhere in Australia, they will be manufactured in CSL, and I will be down there on the assembly line with a stamp, ‘Made in Broadmeadows’, just so nobody forgets this is actually where it comes from, because it defines what we need to do to fast-track through deindustrialisation, to go to advanced manufacturing and say, ‘These are the areas where we have a real national and international competitive advantage’ and ‘How do we invest further in them?’. That has been really important.

Then you have a look and the next critical issue is the Andrews government continuing to build the Education State. That has been a wonderful priority of this government. Investments at the local level for me that were very important include $10 million for the Jacana School for Autism and $7.8 million for Fawkner Primary School. Extra funds have also been committed to engage primary school students with complex education needs through Project REAL delivered in partnership with 15 local schools for vulnerable students and the Northern Centre for Excellence for School Engagement. This is to make sure that we connect the disconnected, that kids do not miss out, particularly those who come from war-torn areas like Iraq, Syria, Somalia. We need to make sure that their vulnerability is looked at and that we make sure they are getting education and are getting opportunities in life. There are also funds for planning to upgrade John Fawkner College that have been designated. These are really important investments.

The Broadmeadows Hospital will be seeking funds from the $200 million Metropolitan Health Infrastructure Fund as well. This is another important ingredient in how we address these bigger-picture things, because we need the hospital in Broadmeadows. We want to build three more storeys and have a virtual hospital on top of that. That is because the Northern Hospital has the highest number of people turning up at emergency. If we use the virtual hospital, we can treat people at home using technology rather than in hospital—make sure they get the appropriate care—and it would also have acute beds. What we also want to do is connect this with Kangan TAFE. Kangan TAFE was opened by former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Under the one-term coalition government they took $25 million out of it when we were going through deindustrialisation. So it is critical to get that back up to get the opportunity and the connection for the local students and connect local people to local jobs.

We have attracted private-sector investment back into the area, so now is the time to get this alignment right. If you think about it, these are the cohorts of people that we need—these are the sons and daughters of each new wave of migrant families that we need to be able to get the skills, to be able to address nurse-patient ratios, to be able to do all the other jobs, and particularly to get to communities that are sometimes difficult because they are new arrivals or refugees. That is what the pandemic has exposed as well. No-one is immune, but the coronavirus stalks inequality. To get the Australian economy up and going we have got to fix Broadmeadows; it is straightforward.

So here is the opportunity. We have done all the plans. We are trying to work through this budget, which is outstanding in the opportunities and the big picture and everything that it has framed for everybody. I want to thank the Premier, all of the cabinet, the parliamentary secretaries, everybody involved in the party and everybody who has made a commitment to try and do this, and the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0 as well. It has been a mighty effort to try and turn this around. That is what we need to do—keep driving with the strategy, the vision, the unity, creating the hope and delivering. That is what this budget does, and we are hoping to add even more value in the budget to come in May. I absolutely commend the vision, the leadership, the strategy and the difference that this will make to save lives.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (12:36): I rise to make a contribution on the 2020–21 budget. This is a budget that for my electorate in particular is quite disappointing, and I think it will be known to a large degree as the hotel quarantine budget. Spending to the level that this budget outlines certainly would not have been needed had hotel quarantine not been botched. It is costing us dearly, and it will cost us dearly for many, many years to come. As the Shadow Treasurer pointed out in her contribution, no other state is realising this level of debt or has had to go this far, and the pure and simple reason for that is because they never had a hotel quarantine disaster like Victoria.

I heard some of the earlier speakers on the other side of the chamber constantly referring to other countries around the world. I think the member for Bentleigh was comparing Victoria to other countries and saying how well we have done. Australia has done well when you look at us as a nation, but there is, I guess, no ability to compare us to other states in Australia, which would be a far better comparison when we are looking at Victoria’s performance. The reason why the member for Bentleigh and others are not comparing us to other Australian states and territories is because Victoria stacks up appallingly because of the botched hotel quarantine system—the only state to have a second wave.

I want to talk for a few moments about my electorate initially before I get onto shadow ministry matters. This budget has been a very hard one not only for the people of East Gippsland to come to terms with but in particular for the East Gippsland business community. This is the budget where what my electorate needs is a really good economic drink. Fires ripped through our area earlier in the year on the back of three years of drought, and then we had COVID. We never had a summer tourism season. The fires hit on 31 December, and everyone was evacuated out of my region—out of Lakes Entrance, Paynesville, Metung, every tourist location in the entire region—for the five weeks that was our peak holiday time. The Princes Highway was closed for all of January. The economic impact of that was huge; it was absolutely enormous. Over the course of this year I have made significant representations through correspondence to ministers, and when Parliament resumed through questions, through adjournment matters and through constituency questions to get a higher level of support for our struggling businesses in East Gippsland, because I know for a fact that a number of businesses that were thriving and healthy 12 months ago are now no longer there.

I know the minister at the table, the member for Williamstown, has indicated that she will be coming down to Lakes Entrance over this coming holiday period, as will other members from both sides of the chamber. It is a popular location. When you come down this year you are going to see a lot more vacant shops along the Esplanade, vacant shops in Bairnsdale and vacant shops in many of our other townships. After these representations that I have been making for quite some time about getting a higher level of business support to get us through, there were some supports, but they can only be described as relatively minor in relation to what was needed, and in a lot of cases our businesses did not even qualify because the restrictions ruled them out.

My business sector has been basically told, ‘That’s what’s on the table. Things are tight, and that’s life as it is’. So you can imagine, I guess, their disquiet when we have a budget that puts us $150 billion in debt and is throwing money at all sorts of things when three to four months ago these businesses needed money to keep their doors open, having struggled through this horrible period, and they were told, ‘No, you have to go it alone’. As I said, a percentage of those businesses are no longer there. We are certainly hoping for a brighter tourist season to get our local economy back on track, but this was a budget where we needed a lot of help. We needed help three to four months ago to help our business sector, but we need a lot of help now.

This was the budget that really should have looked after a number of projects in East Gippsland, and I will talk about a few of them. First of all, we have Bairnsdale Secondary College, and that is a project that I have spoken on so many times in this house. Just to give a brief history of Bairnsdale Secondary College: in 2010, when I was lucky enough to be elected, both Labor and the coalition committed to rebuild Bairnsdale Secondary College and committed to funding stage 1 of the works. There was bipartisan support for that. We obviously won that election and funded and built stage 1—terrific. In the lead-up to the 2014 election the coalition committed to stage 2, to finish the school. Labor did not make that commitment despite it being a priority for them four years before. The 2018 election came around, and the coalition committed to building stage 2, but there was nothing from Labor in 2018 despite it having been committed to in 2010 and recorded by the then candidate as a priority project. So it is a little bit hard for me to take. Whilst, yes, there has been investment in education, why are we just continually being ignored?

Now, the scenario at Bairnsdale Secondary College is this. There are two campuses, the old high school and the old tech school, and students have to walk from one campus to the other—it is about a 4- to 5-minute walk—between classes. This is the biggest secondary college in our region. When it rains, the kids get drenched. When we had an inch of rain on Monday morning in Bairnsdale, the kids were absolutely saturated walking from one campus to the other. In 2014 I think the commitment to build stage 2 was in the vicinity of $12 million. From memory, in 2018 it was $15 million, so you would think it would be around the $15 million mark still now. In this year’s budget Bairnsdale Secondary College got $7 million, and from talking to people from the school, parents and others this week, that does not get all the kids on one campus. It does not build all of stage 2. I am led to believe that over the Christmas period we will have portables being located onto the site. We should be building the permanent, new stage 2 of that school and having that school completed. We should not be dealing with portables; we should be getting the job done as planned. So that $7 million—I can only assume part of that is going into this relocation of portables for new classrooms. We need the permanent school with permanent facilities constructed. Whilst I am sure explanations will be coming, when the planning money has been provided for stage 2 we should be getting on with the job and funding the whole new school, not putting money into arrangements to have portables there. So the budget has indeed thrown up that very interesting situation when it comes to Bairnsdale Secondary College.

There are a number of other projects that could have been funded in East Gippsland to help us get back on track. Fire stations at Lakes Entrance and Metung—we have the land for both of these fire stations. At Lakes Entrance it is up the top of the town at Palmers Road. At Metung it is just as you enter the town at the Kings Cove turn-off there. Land has been secured. There is nothing to stop those developments going ahead. Now, in the summer that we have been through with our fire brigades, what they endured last summer and the great work that they did, surely it is the perfect time to invest in both of those fire stations. That would have been ideal. To get one knocked off would have been good. But unless it is buried away in the budget, and I do not believe it is, neither of those new fire stations have been funded. That could have been just a message from the government to say, ‘You know, fireys in East Gippsland who gave up so many hours and so much time in such a difficult scenario last year, we want to say thanks to you for everything that you did’. But we have not got that. The timing would have been perfect to have that delivered.

I spoke earlier in the week in an adjournment about the work that needs to be done at the Lakes Entrance Fishermen’s Co-op with the unloading wharves being in a state of disrepair. Lakes Entrance economically—not fire impacted directly but economically impacted—probably took the toughest hit in my patch last summer. That town is built on tourism and it is built on the fishing industry. A $3 million investment to fix those unloading facilities would secure the Lakes Entrance Fishermen’s Co-op’s ability to function well into the future. I acknowledge that the minister has committed to coming down and having a look at that—and it is very much appreciated—over the Christmas break, and I look forward to her doing that, but it is just a project that, again, should have been given consideration.

For Bullock Island the plans are there. About half or a little bit under half of those projects have been funded. That could be an iconic tourism destination for us. It would really assist in boosting our economy significantly. A slip-road in Paynesville and the Metung hot springs have had a little bit of money granted, but it is not what they need to build stage 1. When you have got costings for projects and those costings are ironclad, they are agreed to and they are supported, and the government announces a third of the funding that is required to build stage 1, it leaves the proponents in a position where they cannot do anything. It is sort of like being a bit half-pregnant—thankful for the money, but they cannot do anything, they cannot get on with the job. So these are the sorts of things that we need funded in full.

The Maffra Hospital, so important to health care in that region, is in bad need of an upgrade. It is one that is critically important to the western end of my electorate. It is in a state of disrepair and certainly needs a facelift. Other members in the chamber have spoken about the investment in health care that is required in some of the rural and regional electorates, and Maffra should certainly be added to that list.

Before I finish I will make a quick comment on some portfolio matters. This year’s budget papers indicate that last year $9.6 million was spent in relation to the veterans portfolio. Now, $9.6 million is a reasonably modest budget, but in a year when our veterans—and everyone—have struggled and services to our veterans, I would have thought, would have been of paramount importance, the allocated budget for this year is $9 million. The minister needs to explain why there has been an overall $600 000 cut to that veterans budget.

In the disability portfolio, whilst we have transitioned to the national disability insurance scheme and a lot of the disability responsibilities now sit with the federal government, one area that I have been speaking about for some time where we could assist in job creation for those with special needs is a fund to support social enterprise startups. I have been pushing that for some time. It was part of our election policy leading into the last election. That is where we could, I guess, encourage new enterprises to get up and off the ground and increase our disability employment levels in Victoria. Not everything can just be handed over with the expectation the federal government is going to do it all, and that is one that could be looked at.

In relation to racing I read today that the point of consumption tax review was tabled today. It is going to be a very interesting time in the upcoming period. The POCT—that is the abbreviation—currently sits at 8 per cent. We lag behind New South Wales in support for the racing industry, and the minister has got a very interesting decision to make, I will say, on whether he increases that tax to give us some parity with the support that the New South Wales government gives to its racing industry.

But all up, on behalf of my electorate, it has been a relatively disappointing budget. We expected a lot more.

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (12:51): It is a great pleasure to rise in this place to talk on these bills and to talk on the state budget, my second budget as the member for Bayswater. It is a massive budget; it is a huge budget. Before I talk about some of the overall narrative of the budget, some of the local wins and some of the investment that we are building on locally in the Bayswater district and in the outer eastern suburbs, I think it is important to really set the scene and understand why this budget is what it is, why it is unprecedented, why it is big, why it backs in Victorians and why it puts people first.

We know that 2020 has been an incredibly difficult year. Every Victorian has been affected in some way. This global pandemic has been quite vicious and it has left no stone unturned, whether it be locally or across Victoria. I want to say a huge thankyou to my community in Bayswater for everything you have done this year, for all the challenges that you have dealt with and everything that COVID has thrown up. You have succeeded, you have overcome, and we have been there to back you in. This budget makes sure that we continue to back Victorians in, that we continue in the same trajectory and that this Andrews government in its second term delivers for all Victorians and continues to deliver locally.

I am very proud to say that this budget is massive. It is a huge win for locals in Bayswater. It would be remiss of me to not thank the Treasurer, who has done an incredible amount of work on this budget. It was obviously a little delayed because of the global pandemic, but all the same it is unprecedented and massive in terms of investment, helping families get back on their feet, getting us back, getting us moving again and creating jobs. It is a significant budget for all Victorians. In thanking members it is always great to hear particularly members of the Andrews government talking up this budget and all of the fantastic things it does for families and locals in their patches as well. There is a lot of good stuff to talk about in this year’s budget.

Of course this is my second budget and therefore my second year as the member for Bayswater—two years and a couple of days now—and I can tell you that it is one of the most exciting things to do. I am not huge on Christmas. I do not mind Christmas, I am looking forward to a Christmas break, but this is almost like Christmas for me. On state budget day I almost expect to see a Christmas tree with the angel on top and the baubles all around. That is what it feels like for me to be able to deliver for my community.

I am so very proud, humbled and honoured to have been able to represent the community for just over two years now. And part of that job—not just for me but something that I want to recognise here today—is not just to listen to your community but to be accountable, to be out there and to give people an opportunity to have a chat to you, whether it is good, whether it is bad, whether they are congratulating you or whether they are yelling at you, and there has been plenty of that over the last few months. It has certainly been a difficult time for people. You have got to be there to listen, but part of the job of being a local member of Parliament is delivering for your community. As far as re-election goes, all that stuff, all that nonsense, will sort itself out. If you listen to your community and you deliver, we will let democracy do the work. This budget here, this year, handed down by the Treasurer, delivers for the community of Bayswater, and it delivers for all Victorians.

I am in the very enviable position of getting cut up by the lunchbreak. I have clearly annoyed someone—I am not sure what I did to the whip—but I will talk a bit more about how this budget delivers a bit more globally and some of the fantastic initiatives that are included in it.

Of course at the very heart of this budget is our jobs plan. At the heart of everything we do here is putting Victorians first—putting people first and creating jobs, because without a job, well, it is pretty difficult, as we have seen through this global pandemic. This budget launches our jobs plan to create 400 000 jobs, 200 000 of them by 2022—a massive, massive target. You have got to aim high, and we know that this budget is going to help Victorians get back on their feet and get people back into work, and that is important. That is incredibly important. There is also $1 billion of investment going towards our training sector—80 000 free TAFE places. And that builds on thousands of TAFE places—36 000 enrolments last year; well above what we expected. In my electorate as well—well, just south and just north—we have got the fantastic Swinburne TAFE. There are thousands of enrolments there, we know. There are over 40 free courses, giving people the skills they need for the jobs of today and tomorrow, and this budget recommits to that.

We have got $5.3 billion, which is Australia’s largest investment into social housing. I mean, this is just incredible. It has been said, and it is going to be said time and time again: you cannot stay safe without a roof over your head. You simply are at an extreme disadvantage without a roof over your head, without a safe place to stay, and this $5.3 billion investment will change lives. It will change lives for years. Growing up in Dandenong, many of my friends and family took great benefit out of the social housing scheme, not just of this government but of all governments. This is a bipartisan issue, and I believe that is the case certainly with this investment. This is also going to create 10 000 jobs each year—18 000 at its peak. I mean, the economic activity—it is not about just putting roofs over heads. That is the primary aim of our investment into social housing, but it is also about creating jobs—good-paying jobs—and a significant pipeline of works for years to come. This has been one of the biggest and most exciting things to come out of the budget.

Of course we will be encouraging Victorians to get back into the property market. We are waiving up to 50 per cent of stamp duty for eligible homes for the remainder of the financial year. We have seen, obviously, that there is no part of the world, no part of the economy, that that has not been affected. It is going to be great to be able to make it easier for people to own their first home—we have already got policy in that space—but also for all people to get back into the property market, to invest, to get the economy going.

We have $2 billion to establish the Breakthrough Victoria Fund, creating a pipeline of more than 15 700 jobs over 10 years, driving research, innovation and growth in key sectors. And of course we know Melbourne is the home of innovation, the home of research and the home of technology, and there is no better place to do this than right here in Victoria.

We have talked about some of the things in this budget, some perhaps that are more short or medium term. Then we look at the longer term things. I have got a minute to go—excellent. Some of the longer term things, as the Premier has said of this particular project—the Suburban Rail Loop—he will be the Premier that starts it but he will not be the Premier that finishes it. I do not like to be negative too often, but for those opposite to criticise this—I mean, seriously, it is a big project. It is going to take some time. Victorians understand that; they get it. But Victorians also know this needs to happen. This is going to be a game changer, with growth around our suburbs and growth around Melbourne in how we move, how we connect and how we get around. This investment of $2.2 billion is going to kickstart stage 1 of the Suburban Rail Loop. I know a lot of my colleagues are excited—they are pumped—and they are ready to get out there and talk about how this will deliver for communities right across the eastern suburbs and eventually right across that middle ring of suburbs, benefiting all Victorians.

Of course we talk about the cost of living, and I will get back to it after the break, but free kinder in 2021—well, how about it? We are building on our record investment in free kinder. And I have got 7 minutes left after lunch.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.00 pm.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 24 November.

Members

Minister for Water

Minister for Prevention of Family Violence

Minister for Crime Prevention

Absence

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:01): I rise to inform the house that today I will answer questions for the portfolios of water, police and emergency services; Aboriginal affairs, women, prevention of family violence; and crime prevention, corrections, youth justice and victim support, in addition to the arrangements I announced for the entirety of the week on Tuesday.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Budget 2020–21

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:01): My question is to the Treasurer. When asked on Neil Mitchell’s program yesterday to reveal the cost of the government’s major capital projects, the Treasurer’s embarrassing response was:

Well, Neil, I don’t know.

Of the $96.9 billion of new borrowings announced by the Treasurer, how many billions will go to paying for cost overruns on the Labor government’s mismanaged major projects?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! When the house comes to order. It is Thursday.

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:03): Those opposite are experts in embarrassment. After all, the member for Ripon did describe this budget as being one focused on jobs. They know all about jobs: they created 40 000 full-time jobs in their entire time in government as opposed to this government of course that created over 520 000 jobs. The capital budget or budget paper 4—

Mr M O’Brien interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition! The Treasurer has the call.

Mr PALLAS: He makes a lot more sense when his mouth is muffled, I have got to tell you, Speaker.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has the call.

Mr PALLAS: The government has not produced budget paper 4 for a very obvious reason. The advice from my department was that it would be counterproductive to try and assess the impact on these projects given that these capital works are only just getting started. You will see in this budget paper the fact that there is a very substantial underspend on the capital side. You will see in the 2019–20 financial year a substantial underspend. And why is that? Business has not been able to cashflow the projects as they originally thought, largely because they have had social distancing obligations attached to them. We have something like 2000 projects that get reported in budget paper 4, and we will report the engagement with these 2000 projects as the constructors that actually have to take responsibility for delivering these projects work through the cash flow implications of the required social distancing arrangements and this once-in-a-century event.

Quite frankly, if the only criticism those opposite have to direct at this government’s effort is that we have failed to report something that would have been totally ridiculous to attempt to do in the circumstances that are confronting the state of Victoria, well, so be it. They can continue to obsess about minutiae while we continue to create jobs for the Victorian people, while we continue to spend $19.6 billion on our capital works program and while we continue to more than quadruple the capital investment of those opposite, who could not even muster the courage to jump over their own shadow in the morning. Those opposite have failed. They have failed miserably, and we are not going to get lectures from them about how to manage a capital program.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Just before calling the member for Ripon, can I ask the Leader of the Opposition not to shout across the chamber when people are answering questions. I would also ask the Treasurer not to attack the opposition in answering a question.

Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:06): I will just put back on the record that the Treasurer failed to answer that question in any way. He has had these extra six months to prepare the budget and claims—he has done so yet again—that it is not physically possible to produce a state capital budget paper. Why, Treasurer, are you hiding from Victorians the true cost of the government’s waste through these budget blowouts? What is it that the government has to hide such that you cannot tell Victorians where we are with these on this massive spend?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have reminded members this week, I think, a number of times not to add commentary to the beginning of questions. If I have not done that, I do that now. I will be put in the position, if members do that and take advantage of that approach, where I have to rule questions out of order.

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:07): Well, I think the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part of the question is we act on the advice that we get from Treasury and Finance. I will just make the point that all new capital projects that are funded in the 2020–21 budget are outlined in budget paper 3, ‘Service Delivery’. The Department of Treasury and Finance did provide me with advice that budget paper 4 could not be accurately published at this time and that instead a full accounting should be provided for in the May 2021 budget, and the government has accepted that advice. I am sorry that those great experts on the delivery of capital works have a contrary view.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has already been warned.

Mr PALLAS: In lieu of standalone budget papers on the capital program—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will come to order too.

Mr PALLAS: the government has included in budget paper 2 the additional chapter 5, ‘State capital program’. That chapter provides information on new investments and aggregate reporting strategies.

Ministers statements: budget 2020–21

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:08): I said on budget day that this is a budget for jobs, and it absolutely is. Before the pandemic we saw that some 523 000 new Victorian jobs were created between November 2014 and March 2020—more jobs in this period than any other state or territory in Australia. Victoria’s jobs plan aims to replicate this success. We have got a strategy and a target of 400 000 new jobs by 2025 and of course an interim milestone of 200 000 new jobs by 2022. To reach this target, we are funding job-creating capital projects like the Suburban Rail Loop and of course the Melbourne Airport rail link. There is $5.3 billion for social housing, there is $3 billion for school upgrades and $2 billion for health and hospital infrastructure.

We are going to deliver jobs by investing in people and in projects that employ people—that is, jobs for builders, teachers and nurses. We are getting women back to work by employing more than 4100 tutors and a 500-strong recovery workforce. We are providing $250 million to work with business to employ some 6000 women, and we are supporting women’s workforce participation by providing free kindergarten next year and boosting before- and after-school care.

There is $220 million to create and retain jobs in our creative industries—in the arts, culture, screen and of course Victoria’s live music. There is $465 million for Victoria’s tourism recovery package to support tourism jobs across the state. We are serious about creating jobs—jobs for Victorians in every corner of our state, in every industry from trades to the arts and everything in between. Make no mistake: this government’s focus is on getting people back to work.

Budget 2020–21

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is to the Premier. Budget paper 3, page 384, shows that the government has cut IBAC’s budget this financial year as well as the budget for parliamentary investigatory committees, which includes the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and the Integrity and Oversight Committee. Why is the Premier’s government so scared of transparency and accountability that it is cutting the budget of these vital watchdogs?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:11): Whilst I do not have budget paper 3, page 384, open and in front of me, what I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is, as someone who will appear tomorrow for 5 hours before the parliamentary Public Accounts and Estimates Committee—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: Honestly, the Leader of the Opposition is so disinterested in the budget, in jobs, in things that affect real people and so disconnected from the reality of this precinct and this place—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: For heaven’s sake, you have been here three days—how many times have you walked through Queen’s Hall to see the thing set up for PAEC tomorrow? The very thing you are saying is being strangled is meeting tomorrow, and I will be before it for 5 hours.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is clearly debating the question. It was a very simple question. I would ask you to bring him back to answering that question as to why he has cut the funding to those oversight committees.

The SPEAKER: Order! The actual question at the end of that was, ‘Why is the government so scared of scrutiny?’, and the Premier is being relevant to the question.

Mr ANDREWS: Yes, so petrified that I will be turning up tomorrow for 5 hours, and then every other minister in the government will turn up for Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings on the budget, and those with COVID-19 response responsibilities will be there as well. Again I am not entirely sure whether the Leader of the Opposition, who is often bunkered down in his office, has been through Queen’s Hall to see the actual physical set-up for the thing that he thinks is not occurring. What is more—

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

Mr ANDREWS: You asked about parliamentary committees, and that is what I am talking about.

Mr Walsh: On the point of order, Speaker, on the issue of debating the question, whether the Premier is there for 5 hours or 10 hours or 15 hours at PAEC tomorrow is irrelevant to the question that was asked. I ask you to bring him back to actually answering the question that was asked, please.

The SPEAKER: Order! The question, in the way it was termed, was very broad, and the Premier is being relevant to the question that was asked.

Mr ANDREWS: I will be appearing there for 4½ hours or 5 hours—however long it takes to finish up. And I will point out to those opposite that I am a Premier who turns up to PAEC every year. That has not always been the case in the history of this great state. If PAEC’s program of hearings starting tomorrow is not enough to convince the Leader of the Opposition that he is disconnected from reality and not even any good at making stuff up, on Monday we had a contact-tracing inquiry. You ought to contact trace a few ideas, mate!

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, it is not up to the Premier to be reflecting on any member of this house, particularly when he is cutting the budget of the oversight committees. The Premier wants to debate the question. He should not be doing that; he should be answering the question.

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

Mr ANDREWS: We are very proud to appear before these inquiries, to speak in detail, to answer all the questions. If anyone is afraid of oversight, it is no-one on this side of the house; it is other people who are doing everything they can to make sure the party room never meets—

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: We’ll see whether you get through the next sitting week, my friend.

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the last time the Premier appeared before a committee he could not recall 27 times what the facts were, so why would we have any faith this time?

The SPEAKER: The Leader of The Nationals is not raising a point of order.

Mr ANDREWS: A half-smart interjection from a particularly forgettable member of this place, but in any event we know who is scared of scrutiny in this place. We know who is more than a bit worried about accountability in this place, and it is no member of the government; it is someone who is in more trouble than the early settlers when it comes to his backbench. You are absolutely—

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier who created the second wave and 800 deaths should be answering questions, not abusing—

The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr ANDREWS: The Leader of the Opposition has put something to me. He is completely wrong and as usual detached from reality—you can see it. There might be a screen here, but you can smell it—he is in trouble, in real trouble. You are wrong in your question, and I hope I have cleared that up for you.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): You cannot make up your own facts. You can hold your own opinions; you cannot make up your own facts. Given the importance of these investigatory committees in holding the government to account, will the Premier commit to reinstating the budget that is cut from these committees?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:16): Again, I am not entirely certain what the Leader of the Opposition was just doing for the last 3 minutes. He might have been counting in his head how many people might vote for him. Panicking, maybe—that could be it. Fancy being told by this one that you are not entitled to your own facts. It is all you trade in, mate—your own facts.

Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, you have repeatedly ruled that question time is not an opportunity for the government to attack the opposition. That is what the Premier is doing, and I would ask you to ask him to stop.

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

Mr ANDREWS: The Leader of the Opposition has asked a ridiculous question with no basis in fact, and I do apologise profoundly to him if I have offended any sensibilities he has. But fancy being lectured by anyone on that side of the house that it is totally inappropriate to try and have your own facts. It is all some in this place trade in, particularly those sitting at the table opposite, the member for Malvern and the member for Murray Plains. What the Leader of the Opposition has put to me is absolutely wrong and proof positive that that will be me turning up for 5 hours tomorrow to answer questions.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I make available to the house budget paper 3, page 384, which shows—in fact I am happy to throw it to the Premier right now—a $200 000 cut to parliamentary investigatory committees.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is not a point of order.

Mr M O’Brien: Well, I make it available to the house.

The SPEAKER: I am happy for the Leader of the Opposition to make that available to the house.

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask particularly the members at the table, who have some leeway in the conduct of debates in this place because of the roles that they occupy, to set a better example for other members in this place. The level of shouting across the chamber and comments directed at each other I think is unparliamentary. I am talking to all members; I am not pointing the finger at anyone. So can I just ask members to tone down the shouting and to tone down the rhetoric. The Premier has the call.

Mr ANDREWS: I had actually concluded my answer, but what I will say is that I look forward to tomorrow appearing before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and putting the lie to these alternative facts put forward by some. This is not a government that is anything other than committed to fronting up and answering the questions that need to be answered, and that will happen tomorrow. You are welcome to join us if you like.

Ministers statements: Melbourne Arts Precinct Transformation

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries) (14:19): I am delighted to update the house on the biggest cultural infrastructure project in Australia happening right here in Victoria. I have said it before that creativity and the arts is in our Victorian DNA. It is central to our way of life, reputation, livability and economy, and the Melbourne arts precinct is intrinsic to that. Stage 1 of the Melbourne Arts Precinct Transformation project was fully funded at $1.46 billion in Tuesday’s Victorian budget. The NGV is proudly one of the world’s leading art galleries. A landmark new gallery, NGV Contemporary, will be built on Southbank Boulevard amidst a new 18 000-square-metre public garden right in the heart of the Melbourne arts precinct. This is an absolute game changer. NGV Contemporary will take the NGV into the next realm amongst stunning galleries across the globe. This project will transform Melbourne’s creative precinct, attracting millions of visitors and establishing vibrant new gardens and creating space in the heart of our city. In addition, the project supports Arts Centre Melbourne to undertake upgrades at the iconic Theatres Building.

The centrepiece of the Victorian budget is our jobs plan. We are putting workers front and centre in our recovery, with an unprecedented investment in job creation and employment right across Victoria. The Melbourne arts precinct transformation will create many thousands of jobs. At least 5000 construction sector jobs for this project will help drive Victoria’s economic recovery. Another 200 ongoing roles for NGV Contemporary will come into the jobs market. There will be tourism jobs and economic flow-on effects across the state as NGV and our arts precinct undergo this spectacular revolution, attracting visitors from all over the world. This project will permanently cement Victoria’s reputation as the nation’s cultural capital, and I cannot wait for it to come to life.

COVID-19

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): My question is to the Attorney-General. I note the government announcement that overseas travellers will be returning to Victoria on 7 December. Exactly what changes have been made to hotel quarantine since last time to ensure that the same deadly and destructive mistakes are not repeated?

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (14:21): Thanks very much to the Leader of the Opposition for the question. As has been outlined several times, the work being done for the purposes of preparing for the reset of mandatory hotel quarantine is underway. As the Premier has repeatedly said after the interim recommendations from Justice Coate, we will have more to say in response to those recommendations very shortly.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): Will the Attorney guarantee to Victorians that she has fixed the disaster that was the government’s hotel quarantine program and ensure that Victorians are not forced to endure a third wave of lockdowns?

Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General) (14:22): Thanks very much to the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary question. Can I assure him and the house that the government is assiduously focused on making sure that all risks are treated, that we will be responding to the very important recommendations made by Her Honour Justice Coate and that we are focused on making sure that Victoria is safe now and into the future.

Ministers statements: renewable energy

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:23): I am absolutely delighted to report to the house on the six new renewable energy zones that we will be creating right across Victoria thanks to our massive $540 million investment from the budget. From the sun-drenched Murray River region in north-central Victoria through to the pumped hydro potential in the Ovens Murray region down to Gippsland and the east coast for the best offshore wind power resource in Australia and then right over to the windy west and the south-western Victorian regions for fantastic wind power, we are funding every single REZ to drive the creation of 24 000 jobs, thanks to the Victorian renewable energy target (VRET), by 2030. It will unlock 9.5 megawatts of new-build renewable energy projects, driving $5.8 billion in economic activity and investment by 2030.

Is it any wonder that Victoria leads every other state in renewable energy construction jobs, with the Clean Energy Council’s Clean Energy at Work report, which was released in June, showing that Victoria was the home of 30 per cent of all renewable energy jobs? We aim to keep Victoria in the lead because these things just do not happen by chance. In fact the Australian Energy Market Operator says that more than 16 000 megawatts of projects have lodged connection inquiries with them, and I quote from their report, ‘motivated by the Victorian government’s VRET’. Those opposite do not support VRET, and they did everything to stop projects—building projects, creating jobs—when they were last on this side of the house. The facts speak for themselves. Victoria is Australia’s powerhouse of renewable energy jobs. We will create those jobs. We will drive home the economic support that unlocks so much opportunity in regional Victoria right across the state, reducing carbon emissions and reducing power prices. This budget will absolutely turbocharge our commitment.

Mildura Base Public Hospital

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (14:25): My question is for the Premier. Last week Mildura lost a great man in surgeon Kevin Chambers. In 2012 when the private management contract was first up for renegotiation, it was Kevin who alerted our community. If he had not, the contract would likely have been quietly renewed, keeping us locked in a failed and dangerous experiment. Kevin’s courage in speaking up inspired others to do the same. His advocacy was absolutely pivotal. The day you announced we were getting our hospital back, few were as proud and elated as Kevin.

This week’s budget delivered more game-changing wins to our community. There was investment in schools, roads, public housing, tourism and sports infrastructure across Mildura, Robinvale, Merbein, Hopetoun, Sea Lake, Ouyen, Birchip and Wycheproof, and we are very grateful for that. But the thing that would have piqued Kevin’s interest most was the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund. On behalf of Kevin, his family, his staff and the community that loved him, can you confirm whether Mildura Base Public Hospital will be receiving money from that fund?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:26): I thank the Independent member for Mildura for her question but more importantly for her advocacy. She is a great champion for her community and, in contrast to others who have had the honour but never quite delivered for that community, she gets things done. She works very closely with ministers in my government, with agencies of the government, with her local community—those who support her and those who do not. She is all about getting things done. It was a proud moment for her and for me to be able to announce and then deliver a public hospital for Mildura—a public hospital owned by every Victorian, not for profit but for patients. That is what we have delivered, and it should be a point of pride, if I might say, for the Independent member for Mildura that she stuck to this. She campaigned on it, and she has delivered on it, and that is something that she should be very proud of.

I am not sure whether I ever had the opportunity of meeting Kevin Chambers, but to his family, to his former patients, to those who worked alongside him, we honour his memory and the contribution that he made to health service provision in the Sunraysia and in the north-west more broadly. He is fondly remembered because of his commitment to the best care—not the highest profits, but the best care.

What I can say to the member for Mildura is that, just as we have provided $1 million for the service planning work, which as I understand it is not yet concluded, we will look very closely at any application that the Mildura public hospital makes to the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund, which is now up to about $470 million worth of investment largely in much smaller projects, projects that perhaps would never have been funded. We will look upon any application that is lodged by the Mildura public hospital. We will consider it carefully, but I would just say we have got to get the service planning right. Exactly what scope of practice will there be? What services will be offered? How do we best connect those to the rest of the public hospital network across regional Victoria and indeed across our state?

As soon as that service planning is done I think Mildura hospital is well placed to come forward with a high-quality bid for additional support for whatever expansion or enhancement or refinement they may seek to make to the range of services and the number of services that are offered based on the needs of that community but also based on what services can safely be delivered at the Mildura public hospital. So I suppose I cannot commit, but I can certainly say to the Independent member for Mildura that we are committed to properly considering, and considering in detail, any application that comes forward from the Mildura public hospital for funding under the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund.

Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (14:29): My supplementary question is also for the Premier. The operating theatres at Mildura Base Public Hospital are widely known to be inadequate and in major need of significant upgrades. What reassurance can you give that the government is aware of this and will make Mildura Base Public Hospital a priority in this funding round?

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:29): I thank the Independent member for Mildura for her supplementary question. I suppose I would say that the $1 million we have provided for service planning is proof positive that we know and understand that not everything is as good as it can be. Despite the fact that it is now a publicly owned hospital for patients rather than profit, it can be better, it can offer more services, it can be more responsive to the needs of people in the north-west, people in Mildura and the Sunraysia district. I do not want to see people having to travel away from the community they have helped to build to get care if that care can safely be provided locally. That $1 million service plan funding is proof positive of our commitment.

What is more, $8.86 million from the RHIF—the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund—for an eight-bed intensive care unit, an eight-bed paediatric ward, and replacement of operating theatre equipment has already been granted. That is proof positive that Mildura public hospital is on the government’s radar because every hospital is on the government’s radar. We will stand with every regional community, including Mildura.

Ministers statements: tram network

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (14:30): I rise to update the house on the Andrews Labor government’s record investment that will secure Melbourne’s iconic tram network for many decades and years ahead. Melbourne has the largest tram network in the world. We want it to be the best. It has been in operation since before Federation. In fact it has been in operation since 1889. Fast-forward to 2020 and there are over 200 million passenger trips per year every year on our public transport tram network. Fast-forward again to the year 2050 and this patronage will have doubled, with daily trips expected to double right across the growth of the network in all periods of the week.

To meet our long-term aspirations requires investing in infrastructure and rolling stock. The jobs budget by the Treasurer invests $1.48 billion to build 100 new accessible trams that will progressively replace Victoria’s ageing A- and Z-class trams. It will also importantly build a new maintenance facility that will keep our rolling stock up to scratch and ensure we have important advanced manufacturing jobs going forward. This is the largest tram order in decades and will support close to 1900 local jobs during peak capacity. More importantly, it will also ensure the supply chain of our important local advanced manufacturing base and important connections with the local tertiary institutions that continue to develop cutting-edge transport technology.

The next generation tram will be 100 per cent disability compliant. It will halve the energy costs compared to the E-class trams per passenger per kilometre. Most importantly also, post COVID the next generation tram’s innovative design and ergonomics will ensure that boarding and alighting will be easier and will see a reduction in dwell times, which is very, very important. Speaker, 1900 local jobs—this will provide the opportunity to transfer manufacturing knowledge to workers and educational institutions. This is $4.5 billion we have invested. Contrast that to those opposite who did not order one single tram.

COVID-19

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:32): My question is to the Minister for Health. Under the Premier’s COVID road map which was published on 5 September, after 28 days of no new COVID cases Victoria is supposed to move to COVID normal. Victorians have already achieved 27 days of no new cases and expect restrictions to be eased tomorrow in line with the road map. Minister, is the government going to ease restrictions tomorrow to COVID normal, and if not, why not?

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (14:33): I thank the Leader of The Nationals for his question. Like him and like all members of this place, and I think all Victorians, we need to acknowledge the fantastic effort that the Victorian community has put in to get us to this position of 27 days of no infections. The Victorian people have completed an outstanding achievement. There are a couple of peers in the world that have squashed to this level second waves—Victoria, Vietnam and Hong Kong.

When we look at what is happening around the rest of the world we see coronavirus rampant. We see millions of deaths. We see hundreds of thousands of infections a day in some jurisdictions, and to be in a position where the Victorian community, with the leadership of our health professionals and our health sector workers, has achieved this result is outstanding. But it is fragile. It is extremely fragile until such time as a vaccine is distributed. As epidemiologists put it, you do not take a breath of relaxation until 3 billion vaccines have been distributed globally in the face of this pandemic. So the Victorian government has this pathway to—

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has had quite sufficient time to set the scene. I would ask you to bring him back to actually answering the question as to whether Victorians can expect to move to COVID normal tomorrow if there are no more COVID cases.

The SPEAKER: Order! I note the minister is being relevant to the question.

Mr FOLEY: So in terms of the response to the honourable member’s question, having set the context of how Victoria has achieved this fragile outcome with still a significant way to go, the honourable Premier indicated in his multiple public announcements on this issue that the Victorian government’s response is taken on the advice of public health experts. Each step of the way is assessed and reassessed as the epidemiological and other evidence inform public policy decisions. It is not informed by the media cycle. It is not informed by the political cycle. It is not informed by people whose views seem to change week by week, issue by issue—

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, on the issue of not answering the question, the minister was clearly asked about the road map that the Premier put out that said if there were 28 days without cases we would move to COVID normal. I ask you to bring him back to answering that question. Victorians have an expectation that the work they have done will be rewarded by the government honouring their commitment.

The SPEAKER: Order! I understand the question and the substance of the question, and the minister is being relevant to it.

Mr FOLEY: As I was indicating, the Premier has made multiple public commitments, including most recently the release of the current set of COVID-safe restrictions that are in place, which have substantially freed up the operation of the Victorian community to the point that it is, but the government will have more to say about this on 6 December. That is hardly a state secret, and it is hardly an issue that the wider community is unacquainted with. I look forward to 6 December and further announcements.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (14:37): Victorians have endured the pain of lockdown caused by the government’s second wave and have done what has been asked of them. Why, Minister, does your government keep moving the goalposts and why can’t it honour its commitments?

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (14:37): I thank the Leader of the National Party for his question. I restate the substance of my answer to the honourable member’s substantive question: a global pandemic does not react to political cycles. It reacts to the process in which this highly contagious virus spreads through the community. That is informed by public policy, informed by public health advice. And in terms of the position that the member has put forward here—

Mr Walsh: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister is clearly debating the question. There is a very clear road map that was said and printed by the government, which said certain things would happen. Is the minister now saying that that road map is not worth the paper it is printed on?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals is raising a point of debate, not a point of order.

Mr FOLEY: I do note that some members of this chamber and some members of the political parties in other jurisdictions, particularly the commonwealth, associated with those same political parties took the view that this could not be done, that this was an unachievable issue and that we should in fact open up now—that we should put public health at risk. This government will not be doing that. It will be taking public health advice, not political advice.

Ministers statements: Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:39): I am delighted to inform the house that this morning I joined Professor Doug Hilton, the director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, as well as Minister Pulford, to add further details to our unique investment—unique in our country, unique in our region and, potentially over the passage of time, unique in the world—a $2 billion breakthrough fund so that we can take what is regarded as some of the world’s best science, Melbourne and Victorian science, and some of the best ideas, and instead of scaling them up only for them to be manufactured and therefore producing jobs in Singapore or China or San Francisco or wherever it might be, those good ideas from Melbourne can mean big products developed and manufactured in Melbourne and jobs in Melbourne.

Members interjecting.

Mr ANDREWS: I am not quite sure what the Leader of the Opposition is going on about, but this is good news—so it has got nothing to do with you—$2 billion to make sure that Victorian ideas become Victorian products and Victorian jobs.

The sense of energy, the spark, the optimism down there at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute today was very, very similar to the response that $5.3 billion worth of social housing received from those who have spent a lifetime working for those with nothing, for those who without secure roofs over their heads have no prospects. Chief among those advocates is of course my honourable friend the Minister for Housing—a lifetime’s work to deliver this outcome, and he should be proud. I am proud, as are all the advocates that have put forward this. It is not just for dignity, for security, but it creates 10 000 jobs a year for the next four years, peaking at 18 000 livelihoods in a couple of years in roads, in rail, in hospitals, in schools—massive investments to repair the damage, to heal the wounds, to create 400 000 jobs by 2025 and 200 000 jobs by 2022. We are not missing an opportunity. That is what this budget is all about.

Ms Vallence: On a point of order, Speaker, I would just like to raise with you constituency question 4545. It is to the Minister for the Coordination of Jobs, Precincts and Regions: COVID-19 and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events specifically about the recovery strategy for tourism in the Yarra Valley after Yarra Valley tourism businesses were first to close and jobs have been decimated. I would really appreciate an answer to that question, which is well overdue now—it was asked 44 days ago.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member for Evelyn. We will follow that matter up.

Mr Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I draw your attention to a number of questions on notice and adjournment matters that have not been responded to within the 30-day time frame for ministers. They are numbers 4661, 4602, 4601, 4600, 4578, 4577, 4576, 4575, 4574, 4564, 4562 and 3592—that was to the Minister for Education in relation to an update on Sandringham Primary School which was burnt down at the start of the year, so an important matter for my community— and also 3614 and 2303. I would appreciate it if you would raise those with the responsible ministers.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member. We will raise those items.

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, during question time we noticed an increasing tendency for ministers on their feet to fail to resume their seats when a member of the opposition takes a point of order. They continue talking for many, many seconds, and it is now getting ridiculous. I would ask you to raise with ministers that when an opposition member takes a point of order, which they are entitled to do under standing orders, it is the form of the house for the minister to take their seat immediately. We should not have to stand here and continually shout ‘Point of order’ to attract the minister’s attention.

The SPEAKER: Firstly, I thank the member for raising that point of order. There were a number of aspects of question time this week, and probably most of the question times last sitting week, that I find unsatisfactory. I think it would be worthwhile for me and the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House to meet to discuss the operation of question time because I do not think it is operating in the way that the Victorian public would expect. I think we could have those discussions and see how we might work better, but I do thank the member for raising that particular point.

Constituency questions

Lowan electorate

Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:44): (4901) My question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and the information I seek is that given the only road mentioned in the 2020–21 budget papers for upgrade in my electorate of Lowan is the Henty Highway between Horsham and Lascelles, which additional roads in my electorate, if any, is the government planning to conduct major upgrades on over the remainder of this parliamentary term? Roads are one of the biggest issues in my electorate. We have many major routes which are used by trucks, particularly at this time of year when we are coming into harvest. These are not just the major highways; there are also roads for which the government is responsible which are smaller roads that link in silos to transport routes. We need to of course get that grain at this time of the year and get our stock to market. It is important whether you are running freight or whether you are trying to get your kids to footy or take your kids to school or just get to your workplace. I ask the minister just to outline what roads will be upgraded over the remainder of this parliamentary term.

Macedon electorate

Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (14:45): (4902) My question is for the Minister for Housing. Minister, following this government’s unprecedented investment in social housing and a commitment that no less than $30 million will be allocated to new housing in the Macedon Ranges, my question is: when can we expect sites to be identified and building to commence? As the minister knows, my community is committed to environmental sustainability, so I was very pleased to note that the program will deliver secure, modern and affordable homes built to 7-star energy efficiency standards. This will make them more comfortable during summer and winter as well as save on power bills for my constituents. Minister, the fastest growing cohort of people living in insecure housing is older single women. I know many such women in the community that I represent, and to know that this government is working quickly to ensure more Victorians will have the safety, security and dignity that a home provides is an incredible relief. Thank you, Minister. You are a lifelong champion of social housing. I look forward to receiving your response.

Eildon electorate

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (14:46): (4903) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The Badger Weir picnic ground is a particularly popular destination for those living in Healesville and Badger Creek, and the state of the road as you enter the picnic ground is an appalling situation. Will the minister please provide a date as to when a longer term solution to improve the road will be actioned and exactly what that will involve? This is the second time I have raised this road. We were told that works would be done, but the state of the road is still appalling. When people have to drive in, it is still full of potholes and it is very difficult to drive over. School is about to finish and a lot of visitors will be in the area during the summer period, and it needs urgent attention. I have been very disappointed with the lack of attention given to it already despite the minister saying that works would be undertaken.

Buninyong electorate

Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (14:47): (4904) My constituency question is for the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth. I ask the minister if she would please provide an update on the progress of the major redevelopment of the Ballan Recreation Reserve. The $3 million redevelopment of the Ballan Recreation Reserve is something that my community is very excited about. This funding will see the construction of a brand new sporting pavilion, including female-friendly change rooms. The redevelopment will help the community of Ballan with huge health and leisure benefits, particularly for the region’s young people. I know that the Ballan Cricket Club, the Ballan Football Netball Club, the tennis club and the bowls club are really looking forward to using their new facilities.

Sandringham electorate

Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (14:48): (4905) My constituency question is for the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, and I ask: when will the minister offer precise, substantive and helpful responses to the now 32 questions I have conveyed to her on behalf of residents regarding the impact of the Suburban Rail Loop on our community? On Monday, 16 November, following the government’s announcement that the Suburban Rail Loop will commence from the Sir William Fry Reserve in my electorate, I asked the minister questions such as, ‘How much open space of Sir William Fry Reserve will be impacted by the construction of the Suburban Rail Loop?’ and ‘During the construction of the Suburban Rail Loop will access to open spaces at Sir William Fry Reserve be restricted? If so, by how much and for how long?’. In customary but no less disappointing form the minister’s responses to residents’ questions about this project so far have been politicised and unhelpful. I plead with the minister to set politics aside and provide helpful and constructive answers to the questions of my community to show my community the respect that they deserve.

Yan Yean electorate

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (14:49): (4906) My constituency question is to the Minister for Community Sport. I was excited to see that this week’s state budget included a significant investment to help community sports bounce back as well as providing opportunities for councils to apply for funding to upgrade club facilities and local sports infrastructure. A number of the communities that I represent are eagerly anticipating that their favourite projects may now be funded, including the Wallan aquatic centre, the Mernda aquatic and recreation centre and the upgrade of the Diamond Creek pool. Can the minister please advise my community on how and when councils will be able to apply for funding for worthy projects across the Yan Yean electorate?

Melbourne electorate

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:50): (4907) My constituency question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister review the Department of Education and Training processes for students with disabilities who have specific access needs at school? I am asking this question because my office has been working with a family who have a child in year 6, and she is due to begin high school next year. The student uses a wheelchair, but the local school where they are zoned is not actually wheelchair accessible. The school itself admitted it could not provide her with the facilities she needed and supported her to attend a different school. So the family applied to the nearest school that does have wheelchair-accessible facilities, which is just one suburb over, just outside their zone, but unfortunately the school was forced to reject the application and an appeal because it did not fit the criteria set by the department. They contacted my office in distress and ultimately had to appeal to the regional director and have me contact the minister before they were successful and the student was able to enrol in year 7. I am concerned that many other families might also be going through this long and distressing process and encourage the minister to review the system that puts families in this difficult position.

Cranbourne electorate

Ms RICHARDS (Cranbourne) (14:51): (4908) My question is to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. Few people have done it tougher this year than renters, and as we know, so much has ground to a halt due to the pandemic but the bills have not. Many renters have either lost work or are casual workers with no sick leave and are now living week to week, pay cheque to pay cheque. In the midst of a pandemic Victorians have at times been forced to choose between the safety of their co-workers and keeping a roof over their head. Insecure work has been one of the darkest realities of our economy. The stress and fear of losing their home weighs heavily on many people, especially in my community. So my question for the minister is: with 23 000 rental properties in my electorate of Cranbourne, can the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation advise what the government’s plans are to assist renters as the economy transitions towards COVID normal?

South Barwon electorate

Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (14:51): (4909) My question is to the Minister for Planning. How many social housing properties does this budget invest in in South Barwon, and how many social housing properties have we invested in in the electorate of South Barwon since 2014? As many people would be aware, and I am sure the minister is aware, South Barwon of course is Geelong’s growth corridor, and it is important that we make those investments for families that can least afford it. Of course having a roof over one’s head is such an important thing for one’s dignity, and I am very pleased to see the investment. I am very much looking forward to seeing the track record of the Andrews Labor government in the state seat of South Barwon since 2014.

Following question incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 24 November:

Hastings electorate

Mr BURGESS (Hastings) (4910)

My question is to the Minister for Local Government and Minister for Suburban Development. I am seeking information on behalf of the Western Port community regarding the completion of the Baxter-Somerville shared path between Golf Links Road, the Peninsula Link trail and the Somerville railway station.

Frankston City Council constructed the bay trail from Frankston foreshore to Golf Links Road, Baxter, on the border of Frankston City Council and Mornington Peninsula shire, while the Mornington Peninsula shire constructed the Western Port trail between the Somerville train station in Somerville and other Western Port townships, including Hastings, Bittern, Somers and Balnarring.

The gap between the two paths leaves a missing link between Golf Links Road in Baxter and the Somerville railway station. It’s like having a bridge that just doesn’t meet in the middle. The completion of this path is important. It will make an iconic pathway for walkers, runners and bike riders alike, connecting the Frankston, Baxter, Western Port and Mornington township communities.

The federal government already has $2 million on the table to fund this this important project.

Council applied in 2019 and again in 2020 to the Growing Suburbs Fund for $2.1 million from the state government and on both occasions was offering to match the funding request conditional on a successful application. Neither application was successful.

Following the year we have had in Victoria, the jobs that would be created by completing this pathway and the enormous opportunities it will provide for improving people’s health, both physically and mentally, it is hard to imagine a more timely and needed project.

Council is now seeking the amount of $4.2 million and I ask for the minister’s urgent assistance to fund this important project and provide jobs to help soften the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bills

Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020

Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (14:52): I feel like I was cut down in my prime there talking about the fantastic budget that this is. I will get straight back into it of course. I was talking about free kinder, putting around $2000 back into the pockets of families. That is a significant outcome. It builds on our commitment to early years across the entire state. Three-year-old kinder is rolling out in regional Victoria and in a number of places. This is a recommitment—a doubling-down, if you will—to backing in early years education, making a huge difference in the lives of young people across this state and putting money back into the pockets of families.

Of course one-off $250 payments for eligible concession card holders to get a bit of bill relief are helping with the cost of living. We have got some vouchers to get people back into our regions to support the regional economies. We know that they have been hit hard as well. I am looking forward to coming down to the peninsula very soon. I was just at Shepparton. Who knows where else I will get to over the next few months, but looking forward to—

Ms Settle: Ballarat.

Mr TAYLOR: Ballarat, perhaps. Indeed I was at Ballarat earlier this year or maybe at the back end of last year. I look forward to coming back out there again, member for Buninyong.

As well we have got a significant commitment in this budget to continue to support women to get back into the workforce. We know that they have been hardest hit and have certainly been at a disadvantage, so we are making sure that they get every bit of support they need to get back into the workforce. There is direct investment into gender equity and the prevention of family violence and a recommitment to acquitting every one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Family Violence. And particularly importantly, this budget also delivers for mental health—a significant investment of $868.6 million—building on the previous investments of this government to acquit the interim recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. And we know that this government and this budget talk about our commitment and our promise to acquit every single recommendation that comes out of that royal commission. I remember looking from the comfort of my home many, many moons ago, before I was even preselected as a candidate to become the member for Bayswater, I saw this government announce that, and I knew it would be a game changer. This will change lives, it will save lives and it will help to fix a broken system. We can do better in Victoria, and this budget commits to doing exactly that—to making sure we have the best mental health system in Australia.

I would like to turn in the last few minutes of my contribution to some local wins. Speaker, you sadly missed my contribution on the overall budget wins, but local wins particularly are extremely important for my community. Earlier this year, back in May, we announced the Bayswater education plan. That is to bring local schools—the secondary college and local primary schools—to the table to work and to collaborate on how we can transform education locally and how we can build on the successes of our schools. That plan is underway, and I am very proud to co-chair that advisory group. This budget committed to the first stage of getting things done, getting on with it, in terms of capital infrastructure with $12.43 million to Bayswater Secondary College. It is a significant announcement, a significant backing in of not just students but local families and locals in general. Investing in our schools gives our kids the best start in life. That is going to be an upgrade to the main classroom wing. We will see what else we can get done with the money, but it is a significant step in the right direction of making sure kids have the best quality facilities for education in Bayswater.

We have thanked our healthcare heroes time and time again. They have risen to the occasion during the pandemic, and we thank them not just for their work during the pandemic and not just today but for the work they do every day. We are making sure we back in our healthcare heroes, making sure we give locals the care they need and providing the training and tools for our healthcare workers as well, and this budget does exactly that locally. We are of course constructing the Wantirna public aged-care facility with 120 new beds—$82 million of investment there. We have now got $4.5 million to accelerate planning and design work at the Angliss Hospital for a massive expansion to see an upgrade to health care locally. This is going to be a game changer. It is 81 years of age now. I know the member for Monbulk, the Deputy Premier, is very proud of this facility, and that is going to make a huge difference there.

We have also got $2.5 million to upgrade and modernise Heathmont College, a fantastic college. I spoke to principal Kerryn Sanford there. She was over the moon, taking the reins from former principal Johanna Walker, who did a fantastic job, and also from where we were working with Johanna and working with the entire school community. This builds on $5.5 million of investment in the competition-grade gym and in a new positive learning facility, so a fantastic investment is coming to Heathmont College and building on the work of their master plan. There is $4.33 million—this one is exciting for me—for Boronia West Primary School. It is a small school with a big heart. If a school ever deserved funding, it is Boronia West Primary School, an amazing, tightknit school community who deserve every single cent. This is pretty special, this one, and I know the difference it will make to the lives of every single person in that school community—a significant, profound investment from this government in that local school and in the local community.

We are delivering other things as well. We are getting on with making our roads safer. We have just finished off the intersection of Canterbury and Bedford roads with $1.6 million to make that intersection safer, and now we are making the intersection at Alcester Village in Boronia safer as well. We are going to get to work on seeing what we can do to make it safer for locals with better connectivity and better access for all locals and, importantly, the schoolkids who use that intersection to all the local schools. We are going to get that work done as well.

In my last 90 seconds I am going to try and get as much in as possible; there is a lot to talk about. There are changes coming to Boronia—the Back in Boronia campaign that I ran has 600 signatures. I am very excited to say it is a successful campaign. We are going to start to back in Boronia. We are working with that entire proud community to see it live up to the aspirations that we all have for it. We announced $500 000, and we have got work getting underway there now. We are going to have around an extra $2 million to deliver community infrastructure. We have got a suburban revitalisation board to work with locals, to work with stakeholders, to see what change they want to see in Boronia. This is a game changer in Boronia—this is an absolute game changer.

There is $8.07 million for Fairhills High School. It was long talked about, and now this government is delivering it. This government is upgrading Fairhills High School, a fantastic local high school. We are getting on with the job. It does not matter where you are—we are delivering for kids right across the outer eastern suburbs. This builds on record investment in my patch, not just in schools, not just in public transport but across the paradigm of portfolios, whether it is health care or whether it is our youth, with $100 000 for our scout hall. We have $5 million, working with the state and federal governments—we are thankful for their contributions—to build the Knox Regional Netball Centre.

The Treasurer said:

When everyone is valued, needed and nurtured, our future can be better, stronger and more resilient.

This budget speaks to the very heart of that statement, not just in Victoria but in Bayswater. As a local member I will continue to deliver each and every single day for our community. This budget does that, and I commend it to the house.

Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (14:59): I think it is fair to say that I do not share the excitement of the member for Bayswater in this budget—or apparent excitement anyway. The debate this afternoon is about the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020, but it is also unusually about the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. It is interesting that for many years now the Parliament has been pursuing a course of seeking further financial independence from the government, but here we are, apparently, the Parliament has even lost the right to have a debate on its own appropriation bill, which I must say I find rather disappointing. It is simply subsumed into the broader discussion.

Both bills go to the guillotine today, but we know that there will be no consideration-in-detail stage and there will be no Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings before the budget is effectively dealt with. It is unclear even whether the Legislative Council will actually have the opportunity to consider the bills before they go to the Governor for royal assent, because of course their consent is not required. I think it would be reasonable, though, if they had the opportunity to have some input into the two bills.

What are we being asked to approve today, to agree to today? Last year, schedule 1, ‘Departmental votes’ was $65 billion in round terms; this year, $88.4 billion—so a bit more than a one-third increase in that schedule. Schedule 3 is much more modest, $287 million; schedule 4, the Treasurer’s advances from 2018–19, $1.8 billion; schedule 5, Treasurer’s advances 2019–20, $2.5 billion; schedule 6, the interim appropriation, $2.4 billion. So all up in the appropriation bill, it is $95.38 billion—not far shy of $100 billion. Then, of course, we have the appropriation for the Parliament as well.

The year 2020, I think everyone would agree, has been a year like no other in living memory. First, we had the bushfires that began in December last year that ravaged the south-east of Australia, and then COVID shattered the state, and particularly shattered the economy. The member for Frankston yesterday, when he was talking about the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020—and certainly I heard others make similar comments; I am not singling out the member for Frankston—talked about the worldwide pandemic. You need to compare what has happened to Victoria with the rest of the nation. That is the only valid comparison. You cannot talk about what happened in the United Kingdom, what is happening in Europe or what is happening in the United States. The circumstances are very, very different. But in Victoria we have had 20 345 cases as of this morning. That is out of a total of 27 857 cases nationally. So three-quarters of all cases of COVID have happened in this state. We have got over 800 people dead in Victoria out of 907 in total, and that has all happened on this government’s watch.

The budget before us today begins to reveal the extent of the impact of the government’s incompetence, the unimaginable human impact of the government’s incompetence, and this catastrophic public policy failure, because the effects of this public policy failure are not going to simply finish with the emergency; the effects are going to be felt for years and years and years to come. The immediate outlook for the Victorian economy quite frankly is dire. Some of the measures in this budget will assist, certainly, but not too many.

It is interesting: it is two days after the release of the budget and the dust is starting to settle and people are beginning to see the reality behind these measures, and that reality is starkly different to the spin that was put on the announcements from the Treasurer and the Premier on budget day. When you look at the AustralianFinancial Review this morning:

Business groups have questioned the level of private sector stimulus unleashed in Victoria’s record $49 billion budget spend …

It goes on to talk about KPMG analysis and issues with the $250 million to support business. The chief economist of KPMG is quoted as saying that:

Victoria’s stimulus stood in stark contrast to the more business-friendly budgets of the federal and NSW governments, which returned more to the private sector to lead the recovery.

I think this is a very important point, because it is not just KPMG saying that we are in trouble in Victoria. The Reserve Bank of Australia said in the Statement on Monetary Policy that came out earlier this month, and I quoted this yesterday but I think it is worth repeating:

… 200,000 people who left the labour force early in the pandemic … are yet to return, most of whom are in Victoria.

And when you look at the government’s own figures, we are talking about unemployment projections of 8.25 per cent, and that is just beyond anything in recent history. I would suggest that the priorities in this budget are wrong. We have a jobs crisis in this state, but instead of deciding to work with the private sector, to use government funding as leverage to generate jobs, to get people back to work, this so-called recovery spending is being used, in my view, to conceal what is apparently now a structural deficit, to conceal an expansion of the public sector, and that, frankly, is a recipe for economic disaster.

In a couple of minutes I will reflect on the $100 billion or so of new debt—I think it is closer to $110 billion—that is built into this budget. But I first want to talk about the issues of deficits and debt. The starting point, I would suggest, is that you should not be using debt, as a general principle, to fund ongoing recurrent expenditure because debt is a charge on future generations. Now, if you are borrowing to procure assets that are going to be used over decades or even potentially longer than that, in my view that is entirely sensible. But borrowing for recurrent expenditure, borrowing to run a deficit—except in the most exceptional and limited circumstances—simply adds to that generational inequity. We are passing our bills on to future generations.

Under the current circumstances a deficit is necessary—I am not going to argue that—and you might even make a case for a deficit being desirable, because history does make it abundantly clear that when we are in a situation like we are at the moment in Victoria austerity is not an option. It did not work in the days of the Great Depression—it probably aggravated it significantly—and it will not work now. But if we are going to have fiscal stimulus, it has got to be directed to measures that will rapidly revive the economy. It has got to be directed to measures that are not structural in the budgetary sense, measures that are not going to add to the ongoing budget. Again, I think with this budget that is a significant concern, because far too many of the measures announced appear to be of a structural nature.

By way of example, in the financial year that has just concluded the wages bill for the state is $27 billion in round terms. By the end of the forwards in 2023–24 that will have risen by $6.3 billion annually to $33.3 billion. That is a structural addition of $6.3 billion. So that is $6.3 billion extra that has got to be paid out year in, year out, on an ongoing basis. If a fraction of that money that is being spent on the wages bill was being spent with the intention of supporting Victorian businesses to generate jobs, there would be a big jobs dividend. And you would get that dividend without the attendant additional structural costs.

Now, I know the Premier, when he is challenged on this, always says, ‘Don’t you want more police? Don’t you want more paramedics?’. Of course we do. But the reality is, as we know, it is not about police, it is not about paramedics. Overwhelmingly it is not about frontline service positions. It is simply building out the public sector, and it simply does not work.

The other major concern is that the government does not appear to know to a certain extent what these enormous sums of money are being spent on. When you look at the annual financial report of the state of Victoria for 2019–20 it attributes the whole of the $6.5 billion deficit from that year to the impact of the pandemic, but when the Auditor-General had a look at the accounts he said he could only identify costs of around $4 billion that are attributable to the pandemic. So despite the government’s assertions, there are $2.5 billion of deficit that are not part of the pandemic, and apparently the Treasurer cannot tell the Auditor-General why it has been spent.

Now, I said I wanted to make some comments about debt, and as I have said, I have no issue at all with borrowing for long-term infrastructure investment. I have no issue with deficit budgeting under exceptional circumstances, provided it is for non-structural spending. But we have got to watch that level of debt. We have got to watch it very, very closely. When I entered the Parliament at the end of 2006 net debt was $2 billion. When the government took office in 2014, after the desal plant and a few major things like that, debt was around $22 billion. By the end of June it had doubled to $44 billion. By June 2024 that $44 billion will to the best part have quadrupled to $154 billion. So in my time in the Parliament we have gone from $2 billion to $154 billion. We are currently enjoying record low interest rates, and of course if you are a government borrower, you do even better than that. But by the end of the forwards we will be paying in interest alone—not principal repayment; interest alone—$4 billion a year. Not paying it back, as I say—not paying the principal—simply paying the interest. That is $4 billion that you cannot spend on health services. That is $4 billion that you cannot spend on education. That is $4 billion you cannot spend on the myriad other services the government provides. So the enormous debt burden that comes out of this budget I think is cause for very serious concern. It is manageable at the moment but who knows what will happen from here on in.

I think it is cause for even greater concern if the money that is borrowed by the government is used to cover up blowouts on infrastructure projects. There is the government’s decision to conceal the state capital program instead of publishing it as budget paper 4. And the intention, as the Treasurer made clear yesterday, is that it is not just delayed; it is not going to be produced this year. That means the puzzle is incomplete. The Parliament is being asked to authorise through this appropriation measure and the budget the cost of the government’s plan without a full picture. If you believe what you hear on the radio, apparently it is not just the Parliament; it is also the Treasurer, because when he was asked I believe yesterday on 3AW how far over budget key infrastructure projects had gone he said, ‘I don’t know’. Seriously, the Treasurer of the state of Victoria says he does not know how far over these budgets have gone. No wonder they were not publishing the figures in budget paper 4—or the former budget paper 4.

Normally I would talk a little bit about the electorate. As has been the case many times in my 14 years in this house, that is not going to take long, because there is one item, and that is the opportunity for the Mornington Special Developmental School to do some planning to refurbish a school that should have been refurbished 10 or 12 years ago at least. I am delighted for David Newport, the principal, and the school community, who have been pushing hard on this for very long time. They have finally got the planning money. Hopefully there will be a little more money to actually do the job next year.

But I just make the point that Victoria finds itself in crisis. It is a jobs crisis, it is a debt crisis and it is a crisis that has developed largely as a result of the incompetence of the government in managing the pandemic. Unfortunately it is a crisis that this budget will do precious little to solve.

Mr DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh) (15:14): It is a real pleasure to speak on such fundamentally important bills. Budgets always matter, but the budget has not mattered more in at least the last 100 years than it does in this particular year. This is not the time to retreat from the public and from businesses. This is not the time to retreat from public spending. This is a time to support, as the Treasurer says, household budgets and business budgets.

People in businesses have done it tough this year, as many have said. It sounds a bit of a cliché but it is so fundamentally true. We have all experienced it in our personal lives, but also as members of Parliament we have heard it from our constituents. A couple of examples: small businesses in my electorate from hospitality to a landscaping business to photography studios have done it very tough. Often family businesses, seeing what they have worked hard for, just recede into the distance, not being able to be where they wanted to be at a particular time in their business lives. Young people, women and older workers have lost income or in fact have lost jobs, and their financial goals are now further away from being attainable, whether it be buying a home, travelling, providing for kids at university or other things, let alone the psychological impact of losing your job or losing hours, the emotional toll. Jobs correlate heavily with dignity, meaning and purpose. If you cannot express that through your work, it is a huge issue. Sports clubs and community organisations being closed and people suffering isolation and loneliness have had huge impacts. That is what I mean and we mean when we say people have done it tough. We know they have done it tough; it is not just a line.

We responded during the pandemic. We responded as best we could in the shifting sands that were being in government. I think the member for Melbourne, to her credit, in a particular line said she would not want to be in government in a pandemic. I think by default she was saying we did a good job. We responded immediately to some concerns—supporting businesses, community organisations, individuals and other things. But the real demonstration of your values and your commitment to the public and to your role in government is not in those immediate responses, because almost everybody has social licence to do that. Conservatives in Canberra spent billions of dollars on JobKeeper, and good on them. Your real values are demonstrated once the peak has subsided. Then you have to really front up and invest for the future through a budget and actually invest in a way that of course is uncomfortable given previous economic and fiscal parameters. That is where the demonstration of your values is.

We have done that in a targeted way but in a way that utilises the full weight of the Treasury bench. I am so incredibly proud of the fact that we have taken the entire power of government and Treasury and fully focused it on the needs of Victorians—fully focused it not only on individuals but also on economic stimulus across the board. Some examples include kids not being left behind because of remote learning. We did not just say, ‘Oh, they’ll be picked up next year. They’ll find their way’. No, we said we will provide a tutor program in every school, we will provide multicultural workers for kids from different cultural backgrounds.

We said women and young people have done it tough in the pandemic. We did not just say they will be picked up in the uplift of the economy, because we know that is not true. We know that these workers, many workers, will be left behind if there is not a targeted government intervention. So we provided, as the Treasurer said in question time today, a specific targeted package for women—particularly women over 45 but women in general—supporting them, incentivising businesses to employ them and doing things that do not immediately seem to contribute to women’s employment but fundamentally do, like the before-and-after school care program, because women are primarily still the carers of their kids. There is also providing free kinder—universal three-year-old kinder but kinder fully next year—to allow women to go and be who they need to be in a professional capacity. For young people we are expanding the apprenticeship program in a way that is enormous. And there are free TAFE places—an extension of in excess of 80 000 free TAFE places. There are first home buyer incentives and stamp duty concessions. There is a whole range. We have expanded the previously little-known program where the state will help you gather a deposit for a home. We have expanded that in a big way in this budget, giving young people and first homebuyers a leg up. And of course there are business tax cuts, not only the ones we provided during the pandemic but more enhanced business tax cuts to provide an economic stimulus.

Creating wealth for the future—the Premier and the Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy in the other place were at a press conference this morning, and the Premier talked about it at question time. The Breakthrough Victoria Fund—$2 billion over several years to ensure that the innovation, the intellectual property, the endeavours and the blood, sweat and tears of research institutes, universities, small businesses and embryonic inventors get to stay here and get to create wealth here, not go to San Francisco or go where the biggest wallet or purse is but stay right here in Victoria to create economic prosperity and wealth across medical research, clean energy, agriculture and innovation. Why shouldn’t it? For example, we often quote that wi-fi was invented in Australia. But it is years old, and there are many other inventions and innovations that we have let go because there is no government intervention in that space. The Premier talked about the valley of death—great ideas which falter because of lack of capital and lack of networks.

And of course there are the big, iconic, transformational projects. I have said before in this place that we have all had those conversations in a restaurant or a pub or someone’s living room: ‘Why can’t any government do X? Why can’t we fix Y?’. Well, we have done A, B, C, D—we have done the alphabet, and we are still doing it. Big, intractable problems we have addressed head-on. So on climate change—we have made a humungous investment in addressing climate change with solar panels and replacing old, inefficient heating systems in people’s homes and actually offloading some cost pressures on households across Victoria. The family violence reforms get continuing funding in this budget for those 226 recommendations that will change not just the lives of women today but the perception of women in society into the future.

Transformational projects—mental health gets $800 million just in Victoria as a down payment for the first interim report of the royal commission. They are the kind of figures you see in Canberra, not in a state budget. Social and public housing we have spoken a lot about, but we will meet the 12 000, as the Minister for Housing said; in fact we will exceed 12 000 new units. Why should we put up with homelessness? That is one of those age-old ‘intractable’ problems we thought were intractable, but do you know what? It was never intractable; it was just about commitment, will and living your values. On insecure work there is a pilot we are trialling to ensure that people can take sick leave without compromising their health and public health. With the Suburban Rail Loop and the Metro Tunnel we are expanding the size of the existing city loop. That has not been done for 40 years. But who is doing it? It is the Andrews Labor government. There is airport rail. How many conversations have Melburnians had for decades about airport rail—for decades. And how many governments have dined on the promise? This government did not dine on the promise; it is actually delivering it, and it brought the federal government with it. It was our idea, and to their credit they have contributed to it.

And what did we get today from the person who wants to be the Treasurer of Victoria, the member for Ripon, who walked in here? What did we get from this person? We got doomsday politics, carping and a litany of complaints. That is what we got from the member for Ripon. In fact after the doomsday politics and the carping she said confidence and hope are essential preconditions of economic recovery. Well, yes, we know that. That is why this budget is exactly that. She obviously did not know that, because her 40-minute contribution was nothing like that. It was complaints and no solutions. I listened intently. I sat right here, and I listened intently. There were no solutions. There was one little one, which was not innovative. She said, ‘We need to bring people back into the CBD’. Really? Thanks, Sherlock. We announced that with the Lord Mayor of Melbourne and the Premier weeks ago. But that is not a solution to what we are facing. That is one small part. She picked up one little shred, and she talked about an employment figure, somehow—they have got such experience of creating employment—with no pathway to get there. And then there were her inaccuracies. This is where she was mendacious. She quoted some consumer confidence data from the September quarter. The September quarter means July, August and September—three months aggregated. I do not have a photographic memory, but I reckon July and August was probably the peak of the pandemic. She quoted figures that showed that the Victorian consumer was one of the most nervous consumers and fragile consumers in Australia.

Well, the real data from the Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index of 11 November—so only a couple of weeks ago, the 11 November report—showed consumer sentiment is up in Victoria, where confidence surged 9 per cent to 111 points in November, better than the Australian overall average, which was up 2.5 per cent. So we were up 9 per cent; Australia was up 2.5 per cent. That is the recent data. I quote them:

Amongst the major states the stand-out was Victoria where confidence surged 9%, although in NSW it fell by 5.5% following the spectacular 17.5% jump last month.

That is the data that the person who wants to be the Treasurer of Victoria should be quoting in this chamber—the most recent data. And that was pre-budget. Can you imagine consumer confidence after the budget?

The truth is the opposition is on life support. The member for Malvern’s leadership is terminal. You know where in a train—as the minister for transport said—you can ‘break glass in case of emergency’? That is the stage we are at with the opposition. They are about to break the glass. In fact the problem is: they are replacing him with who? There is just not the talent there. What they cannot stand is—and I am going to say this unashamedly—that the member for Mulgrave is the best Premier in Victoria’s history.

Members interjecting.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: Cue ‘Oh, you’re sucking up, you brownnose’. Cue all that because I do not care. The reality is he is the best Premier we have ever had. And that rankles them. It unsettles them. They cannot land a blow and they do not know what to do. They cannot land a blow. This man, the member for Mulgrave, has become the best leader in Australia—unparalleled in his determination, his vision, his imagination and his ability to deliver—of course with a very able and experienced—

Members interjecting.

Mr DIMOPOULOS: No, a Treasurer—a very able and experienced Treasurer. We are so extraordinarily proud. Of course we are not faultless, but do you know what? Over six years we have demonstrated—governments’ commitments are not demonstrated in one year, as profound as this budget is; they are demonstrated over six years—we have a long-term commitment to the Victorian people. We are here not for a day, not for a headline; we are here for change, and transformational change in people’s lives. Just in my community I cannot move around—and it is probably the same for most of my colleagues on this side—without bumping into a project that this government has started, and not just any project but projects that will be there for years. I feel so extraordinarily proud that however long I am here—whether it be two terms, three, or whatever—there will be legacy projects left behind for my sister’s children, and not just my nephews but their children.

We have had every level crossing removed in my community. The ones just outside my community that are still impacting on my community are two in Glen Huntly, and we are starting those in a few months. Every school bar two has been upgraded, and we are getting onto those as well. We are building the first ever heart hospital in the country in my electorate; expanding the emergency department of Monash hospital, the hospital that my community uses; adding lanes on the Monash Freeway; upgrading almost every major pavilion in my electorate, from Murrumbeena Park to Koornang Park to Lord Reserve; and we have built the Huntingdale bus interchange—enormous change in the community. And do you know what? That is in six years. When you think about what long-term, progressive, committed and values-based Labor governments can do, it makes your hair stand on end. We can really change people’s lives, from social policy to economic policy.

In the few moments I have got left, because this is also on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020, I am going to thank the people in this building that make democracy work behind the scenes: the cleaners, the gardeners, the catering staff—and I wish Karen the very, very best; she has now left the place but she has been fantastic—the attendants, security PSO staff, the table office, the clerks, the Hansard reporters, maintenance staff and everybody in IT and payroll. Chris Prasad is a stand-out in IT, I have got to say. The whole team are extraordinary people. We come in here, we do our gig, and they are unfazed and they support us, but by supporting us they support Victorian democracy and the Victorian community. I commend them and their work, and I commend both bills to the house.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:29): I rise to speak for the Victorian coalition on the Appropriation (2020-2021) Bill 2020 and make some comments initially about what this budget means for my electorate of Caulfield and also what this means for the areas of portfolio responsibility which I have in police and corrections and community safety. Could I start first by saying that this has been a really tough year for so many Victorians, and particularly I want to make mention of the many of my constituents of the Caulfield district and surrounds that have really, really struggled this year. We know they have, and we know that 2020 is a year that many of us would sooner forget. With the situation that Victoria particularly has seen itself go through, the 111 days of lockdown, the 800 lives that have been lost, it is a moment in time that will never be forgotten. I am sure what will be recalled in many, many years to come are the many, many failures that have happened during this particular time. With that, we do know that we are getting to a point where we are at the other end of the pandemic and we are able to get back to our lives—we are very, very thankful, many of us, that we are able to do that—largely because of the work of, really, many Victorians that have really suffered the pain and worked very hard to get through things.

But can I say the budget that we have is a missed opportunity. It really is a missed opportunity. We know that we need to spend during a pandemic. We know that we have a situation where jobs have been lost and one in five people are out of work or certainly do not have the hours that are needed to be able to put food on the table and pay the bills. This is a really desperate situation for many Victorians, and there will be more pain to come. So what Victorians were looking for from this budget was a reset, and they were looking obviously for this government to spend money that ultimately would make Victorians money. It is like any business, really: when things are tough, you invest in infrastructure. You have to borrow. We understand that. You have to borrow through a pandemic, through a crisis, but ultimately it should be money that is wisely spent to get a return.

What we have seen is $155 billion on the taxpayers credit card with very, very little return in store. As part of the $155 billion that we have effectively borrowed, $100 billion is new current debt, of which $8.2 billion is earmarked as new infrastructure spending, and I make this point because that is less than 10 per cent. We know that we need major infrastructure expenditure, and I know many in the government have spoken about things like the airport rail, a very, very important project. I want to congratulate the federal government for their investment and involvement in this. A lot of transport, a lot of other infrastructure, is really, really important at this time.

But we know that there needs to be the kind of investment that is going to get Victorians through the bad times. I want to commend the federal government and the federal Treasurer in particular for the kind of leadership that we saw through JobKeeper and JobSeeker, because in that situation, I am sure many of us will understand, without them we would have seen many Victorians in absolute, absolute despair and a situation where many of them would not have been able to recover. I know in my electorate many small businesses have struggled. Some have closed. I have had over 100 businesses in my electorate that have contacted me that are in a really, really difficult situation right now, and unfortunately only 3 per cent of those receive any type of support through this budget.

So I want to talk not about attacking, not about opposition, but about a proposition. I think it is really important to be able to show leadership during these difficult times, and I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and many of my colleagues, who have put together a Back to Work and Back in Business plan that is all about being able to say to this government and say to the current Treasurer, ‘These are the kinds of things that need to happen now’. The kinds of things the back-to-work plan is talking about are things like straight-up relief in terms of taxation—payroll tax, which many small businesses pay—to turn around and say, ‘No, we’re going to change up the tax laws here. We’re going to give relief to small businesses, like New South Wales have done, to encourage investment, to encourage employment’.

That was missed. It was an opportunity. We put in this 69 different ideas. We often are criticised in opposition because we are negative, that we attack and we do not have new ideas—I know many on that side have said that today. Well, you have got a situation of a number of ideas that sit here. As I said, cost-of-living pressures, dealing with freezing local government rates, a one-off increase in energy concessions, dealing with looking at a $1 billion manufacturing fund—these are all ideas that should be part of the budget but are not in the budget. Lifting the threshold for the first $10 million of payroll tax—so again encouraging more investment. Instead of lifting the threshold of payroll tax, what we have got is a casual killer of casual staff through additional taxation, through an additional hit, which ultimately is a disincentive for many businesses to employ more casuals. And that is not what we need right now. We need to create jobs, not to effectively lose those jobs and attack those jobs.

There is more in here. Again, we talk about a fast rail situation with our airport rail. I know the government is talking about an airport rail. We love it. We think that is really, really important—having an airport rail—but we do not need an airport rail stopping at all stations. We do not need an airport rail that is going to be slower than the airport bus. What we need is a fast rail that gets you to the airport quickly and gets you in and out of the city—something that is taken up and used—and that is not what is being proposed at the moment. So it is about looking at what is going to be the best solution for all Victorians.

There is a $50 million fund for the events industry. Now, again, the events industry is still not back and working and will not be working for some time. They are struggling. They are absolutely struggling. We have had a number of Zoom discussions with the events industry, and they desperately need the help, and that is what we are talking about in this propositional document, the back-to-work document we spoke to.

A $2 billion investment in Alfred Health—that has not been seen either, for a new Alfred Health site, including the Caulfield campus, which is a missed opportunity. Now, I do want to say that within the budget there is some money for a land management review plan of the Caulfield Alfred Health site—something that I have been advocating for for some time. I know a number of stakeholders have been doing that. I know some of the schools have been doing it as well. I know Mount Scopus college are looking to see what opportunities they have as part of that overall plan. It is a big piece of land. It is a great opportunity for a health precinct, an education precinct and also an open space precinct. I look forward to seeing what we can do with that plan, but ultimately we are going to need the dollars.

I want to talk locally. Locally we need a real opportunity going forward, starting with open space, public space. We have got the lowest amount in Glen Eira and we desperately need more. I was very, very happy to be involved with the member for Oakleigh in the review of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust to get a new trust installed and to get a land management plan to be able to see what is possible at the Caulfield Racecourse. There is 12 MCGs worth of space in the middle of that racecourse and it is under-utilised. We have a plan for a botanic gardens-style running track around the perimeter, sporting fields, passive space, fishing—a whole range of things within the middle of that racecourse. We need money. It is going to probably cost $20 million to $30 million for that; there is no money earmarked for that land management plan.

Schools—schools are so important. Schools like Caulfield South, Caulfield Primary, Caulfield Junior, Ripponlea—these schools have received no money. There is a whole range of talk of millions of dollars’—$3.1 billion—worth of maintenance upgrades and new schools. None of that has gone to the schools that I have just mentioned. I know that we had to fight tooth and nail to be able to get new toilets a few years ago at Caulfield South Primary School because they were unusable. Now, these schools have not seen anything. They are in desperate need of a shade sail so the kids can actually not get burnt when they are eating their lunch, or are able to play sport when it rains. It is basic, basic things that Caulfield Junior needs. These are buildings that are hundreds of years old and need work. We need our schools upgraded so they can be 24/7 sites, so we can use them not just during the school period but beyond and they become part very much of our community. That is what I will continue to fight for for my schools.

Level crossing removals—I know the member for Oakleigh mentioned Glen Huntly and Neerim roads. That has only been brought forward a year. We would have had that built within this term; it has been brought forward a year. We still do not know what they are going to do with the site. We have real concerns about those sites becoming effectively value capture for sky towers. As I said, there is a low amount of open space, so let us build some pocket parks on top of those level crossing removals. That is what I will be advocating for. We have now asked for Ripponlea level crossing to go as well—a great opportunity. There is very little open space in Ripponlea and very little car parking for the traders in Ripponlea. Let us build some car parking, let us remove the level crossing and let us get a park in Ripponlea.

The cultural precinct of Elsternwick—a great opportunity to get that done, a Jewish cultural precinct. The old ABC site is desperate for redevelopment. We do not need overdevelopment there. We do not need more units. We need to be able to get a community asset—something that I will continue to advocate and fight for. There is an abundance of projects and abundant need for that. We will keep fighting and we will keep working, Caulfield. We have been overlooked, but we will not give up. We will not give up, because my constituents deserve it and need to be able to have access to those facilities.

Could I, in my last few minutes, just draw attention to some of the portfolio areas. We do have a crime issue in Victoria. We have had a 6 per cent increase in crime, even during the pandemic. If you look at the types of situations, including youth crime, which is huge—we saw the situation only today of a stabbing death in Seaford. The Chief Commissioner of Police mentioned the increase in knife crime and weapons. There is a real issue in all of this. We need to fix it. And this is not a scare campaign. This is about ‘What can we do to address the problems before they occur?’. We see youth crime representing the largest cohort of violent crime offenders out of any other category. These are young kids. We have got to do something to help those young kids. Now, 33 out of 34 of these kids that are offenders are not getting access to any programs. That has gone up. We have got to turn those kids, to give them the programs that they need to stop them becoming lifetime criminals and instead give them opportunities and get them into school and into jobs to become great, upstanding citizens. That is the kind of thing we need.

It is a revolving door, the prison system—recidivism, reoffending, has gone up from 43 to 44 per cent. People go in, they come out, commit more crime—up again. We have seen drugs increase in our prisons when we have stopped prison visits during the pandemic. Drugs are up. People are going into prison and getting more of a habit when they come out. We have got to stop just locking people up and getting them to graduate to more crime. This is not good enough. Community safety has got to be a priority; it has got to be a focus. We have got to return PSOs to our platforms. The government has turned PSOs away to other jobs, but we must not lose sight of the fact that we want two PSOs on every platform to ensure that we have safety. The Seaford attack, the killing that happened, was at the station; it was at that precinct. Again it shows the importance of having security and having people out there—PSOs out there—keeping us safe.

Police in schools we have been calling for for a while. It is not in the budget. We need to ensure kids learn about policing and the importance of policing. We have got confidence in policing at a decade low, down 10 per cent—a decade low—and we have got to change that around. Our men and women of Victoria Police on the front line do a great job, but unfortunately that job has been tarnished because of the work they have been forced to do by this government during this pandemic. Many of them have been given jobs that they never expected to do when they pulled on their uniform. We have got to change that up; we have got to build respect back for our police force. This is all really important work that needs to be done. It is important in terms of restoring confidence in Victoria and getting Victoria back to where it needs to be—not at the back of the pack but at the front of the queue. That is where Victoria needs to be, that is where Victorians need to be and that is what we have got to be fighting for. This budget is not about patting people on the back, but it is a missed opportunity. Unfortunately it is not the end, because we are going to keep looking to see how we can turn this missed opportunity into something that puts Victorians first.

Could I finish by thanking the Parliament staff, who do a wonderful job in supporting us and a great job for all of us: the attendants, the library staff, the catering staff—everybody. A symbol of that is the work that was done with the Salvation Army in feeding the homeless. I saw Brendan Nottle yesterday and just commended him for what we have been able to do during a pandemic—feed the homeless—and the catering staff were part of that. Thank you to everybody in the Parliament that make this job tick. It is a very, very tough job all of you do, and we thank you for the work that you do.

Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (15:45): I am pleased to contribute to the debate in support of the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. Can I say that tomorrow marks 10 years in this place for me and my 10th budget to engage in a debate on and be involved in in this place. The first four of those of course we were not greatly supportive of. They were budgets put forward by the Baillieu-Napthine governments. They were budgets that cut services. They were budgets that undermined jobs in Victoria and investment in our community. They were budgets that undermined issues raised in some of the debates we have had this week around wind farms and that sort of innovative investment in our community. They also sent a clear message to communities like mine that they were not valued by conservative governments and they were not supported. The very significant public sector workforce in my electorate of teachers and health workers were undermined, were devalued, were not supported, were not invested in and were not advocated for by the government of the day, a government that also never mentioned jobs. In one particular budget the now Manager of Opposition Business got up to give the speech as the then Treasurer and did not mention jobs once. Can you believe it? Much has changed—we know that—in what has been put forward in this budget in very difficult times.

Can I say it has been a very challenging year for constituents in my Ivanhoe electorate, and I want to thank them, particularly the families who have endured economic and social disruptions of the sort that we have not seen in a century. I want to thank them for their inspiring commitment to each other. In particular I thank the health workers in my electorate at Austin Health, at Mercy Hospital for Women in Heidelberg and at Warringal Private Hospital that effectively played the role of backup for COVID cases that were treated at the Austin—to see that teamwork. I want to stand up for our aged-care workers and everybody who works in aged care, in particular the people who I felt many times were perhaps being unfairly criticised, as though somehow the outbreaks in public sector aged-care facilities and in private facilities, many in my electorate, were the fault of these people who put themselves on the line to care for the people that we love very much and who worked so hard for them and who themselves became sick and unwell at times as we battled this worldwide pandemic. I want to thank them for their commitment and work in the community in our aged-care places, a sector that is perennially undervalued and underfunded and under-regulated by the commonwealth government, a sector where that government are more interested in what happens with some of the big shareholders and multinational companies in this space than they are in individual people who work and call themselves residents in those places. So I want to stand up and thank them for their work too.

I want to also acknowledge that we do speak often about the work that is done in this place around equality, and much has been done. But what the pandemic certainly showed and what we have picked up in some of the work in this budget is that some of those last-minute outbreaks that we dealt with across parts of the northern and western suburbs and in parts of my own electorate went to the heart of equality when it comes to poverty. This goes to the heart—again drawing attention to where some of these outbreaks occurred towards the end of the second lockdown—of a reflection of how many people struggle to make a living or to raise their families, and who have many very significant pressures and intergenerational poverty. I want to thank the community in my electorate and the Banyule Community Health Service for the very significant leadership role that they have played, particularly with some of the CALD communities in my electorate. The work they did not only got on top of some of those outbreaks and supported communities but really brought to the fore that now is community health’s time. The work that they did to pop up in the mall in West Heidelberg and in our local parks to do COVID testing was inspirational, and I want to thank them very much for the work that they did.

In noting that, there are several other aspects in the budget that I wanted to touch on, in particular two very significant announcements. And it does start in West Heidelberg, because I can assure you in my 10th year here, marked tomorrow, there is just no way I would have the opportunity to deliver so many great outcomes for my community right across Ivanhoe without the support of the people of West Heidelberg. I do want to say that it is not before time. They have worked so very hard to see this Andrews government budget deliver 130 new townhouses and apartments at the Tarakan Street estate in West Heidelberg.

I was really very pleased to support them, as the chair of the public housing renewal program, in the work that we have done to relocate residents at the Tarakan estate and to give them the first opportunity to come back to these new accommodations if they would like to do so. Also in the Bell Bardia estate there were hundreds and hundreds of people that we were able to relocate to better accommodation, and they will have an opportunity through that $5.3 billion fund that has been announced around the blitz on public housing that will see some 12 000 homes built and some 10 000 jobs a year created. That will be a fundamental difference to people in my community of West Heidelberg.

Much is said about growing the amount of public housing in our community, and that is a fundamental need that part of this funding will address. But what is also important is that houses and apartments and walk-ups that were built in the 1950s around the Melbourne games, in the Olympic Village in my electorate, well, they are just not appropriate. They are people’s homes, no doubt about it, but also they have done their job and it is time to reinvest and renew those homes so that new families can move into the community. They can send their kids to Olympic Village Primary School, which we totally rebuilt, brick by brick, for $6 million. They can go to the Banyule Community Health service and engage themselves in great services, also built by a Labor government for—can you believe it, cheap at half the price—$11.5 million under the Bracks government. So again, it is a community that is in transition but a community that is getting its fair share from Labor governments—its fair share. It contributes hugely in my local community.

I know they will also be interested, as many others across my electorate will be, in the one-off payment of $250 to help cover the cost of electricity bills for householders who are eligible concession cardholders. What I am pleased about in particular is that it also applies to JobSeeker, the Youth Allowance and pension payments. So that means if a young person is renting, then they can access these payments. That is really significant.

Can I also say on Banyule Primary School, back in 2018 the Premier visited. We accepted a petition. There are 715 students there at Banyule Primary. We contributed $4.47 million for a master plan, and we built a new gymnasium for them and with them. Then of course we were able to go back just recently and announce $12.386 million to complete the job at Banyule Primary School. It is very significant. It is a great school in my electorate, as so many are. I have had opportunities, with the support of our government, to work through and invest in schools right across the electorate of Ivanhoe, none better than the $11.5 million to Viewbank College, my old school, the place that gave me a start in life. To find yourself in this place with an opportunity to go back and reinvest in the places that gave you a start is really significant.

I did want to touch on the Treasurer’s speech. He also mentioned that throughout the pandemic we have undertaken something like 3 million COVID-19 tests, 1500 intensive care beds have been created and we have delivered millions of units of personal protective equipment—really significant investments in our health services. I want to commend the member for Albert Park for the work that he is doing and the opportunities he has provided to so many in the Department of Health and Human Services to show that leadership that is needed. It is an area I have had the opportunity to work in both as an adviser during the Bracks and Brumby periods in government but also as a parliamentary secretary throughout our time in government.

Service delivery is hard. Service delivery is difficult. Service delivery is fundamental to state governments and our accountability and our role in the community. It is really hard stuff. It takes great commitment and great investment not only in a financial sense but in the investment of people’s personal commitment. To all those health workers, all those at 50 Lonsdale Street and previously when it was at King and Collins streets, all those people who commit their working lives in the service of others, I welcome and thank them for all that they do, particularly in these most unprecedented times. Never has there been an opportunity to see public health really having to step up and be so fundamental to the work that we do. We saw that as well I think when we talked recently on the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, which was leaned on so much by our government and our state to drive our leadership in tackling the pandemic. It was legislation introduced in 2008 by the then health minister and now Premier, and it was really looking to the future of how we may have needed to use these services. Also, of course, some 200 000 jobs are what we are looking to create to get people back to work by 2022, and 400 000 by 2025.

I want to also touch on the fact that at Warrnambool hospital in more broad terms as Parliamentary Secretary for Health I got the opportunity to work with former Minister Pike on the first stage of the Warrnambool hospital redevelopment—delivered by our government, despite the fact that the local member was a former Premier in this place, the former member for South-West Coast, he never got around to making an investment in that health service. Now, again, a Labor government is coming back to complete the job, with a $384 million investment to redevelop further the Warrnambool hospital, just as we have at Bendigo hospital, just as we have at Ballarat Health Services, just as we have at Gippsland, just as we have in the past when we have invested in radiotherapy services in our regional cities to keep people who are unwell in their community, supported by family. Again we have come back to that investment in our regional cities and towns that have grown because we have been able to invest and provide the services that people need.

Investment in the Better at Home program to care for people who previously spent time in hospital and undertaking great opportunities for them will free up some 160 hospital beds. I want to acknowledge the work also, as Parliamentary Secretary for Carers and Volunteers, of the member for Narre Warren North, and I want to congratulate him in particular for the very significant work that is being done—I just wanted to touch on that—that relates to transforming support for students with disability in Victoria. That is very significant work that is going to see some extra support in the classroom for some 55 000—that is what the numbers are going to move to—people with disabilities. That is really significant work.

Can I say also that what is particularly important in the work that the member for Narre Warren North has been able to achieve with the support of our government is in relation to the $64.7 million for the Home Stretch program, extending state supports from 18 to 21 years. No longer do people have to be under the pump to think that turning 18 means you are going to be out on your ear and lose those supports that have been so fundamental to giving you a start in life. To extend those opportunities to people to 21 is really understanding what changes lives. It is about understanding how you give people a start who have had a bit of a bum rap. They have not had it all, and making an opportunity to support and invest in their priorities to give them a chance to maintain those connections and support to 21 is really a fundamental understanding of what is important to people and what is important to Labor governments.

I did want to take the opportunity as well to reflect briefly on the work of the Parliament. I noticed there was a shout-out to the IT department. I mean, goodness me, as if we have not all been on the phone and leant on them like never before. A sterling effort from the IT department at Parliament House has really helped keep us going in providing the supports that were so desperately needed by our communities by keeping us connected, and I want to thank them for the very significant work that they have done.

I also want to acknowledge the homelessness program and the meals work that was done, led by our Presiding Officers in particular, with great support and connections. I think that is about trying to find ways for our Parliament, which may have found itself not able to debate as often as it would have liked, to still play a key role in supporting our communities at the toughest of times. I think that really sets the tone for the work that our Presiding Officers lead and the parliamentary staff do to make sure that they remain not only relevant but really important to the lives of all Victorians.

I also did want to touch on some commentary just briefly on airport rail. I totally and wholeheartedly support the government’s decision and investment around airport rail. You can build a tunnel that does not stop anywhere and spend a heck of a lot of money on that. That is of limited value for most people in the community. To provide an airport rail link that also provides opportunities to work and leverage off the existing infrastructure that we have in the community—to invest further in Geelong fast rail, to further unpick and provide greater streamlined opportunities for people in regional Victoria—is really critical. As much as people focus on times, people also need to focus on the quality of the rolling stock and the quality of the services provided to people, and we are well and truly on the right track there.

I do want to thank again the people of the Ivanhoe electorate for the opportunity they provide me to advocate and secure great outcomes—with them, for them—in this budget.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:00): Here we are again. It is—well, it is not that time of year, because normally it is that time of year in May or June when we are talking about the budget, but here we are in November. We have heard a lot of commentary about unprecedented times, and this is indeed an unprecedented budget. It frankly is unprecedented in its scale, in its debt, in its deficit and in its spending. The mind boggles—the mind really does boggle. I am not saying that only in a pejorative sense or only in a positive sense; I think there is an element of both. There is no question that the government here in Victoria, the commonwealth government based in Canberra and every other state and territory government has been called upon to do the bulk of the heavy lifting as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and the associated economic harms that we have experienced. What has I do not think at all ever been acknowledged by any of those opposite is that the increased scale of Victoria’s response was caused by the second wave that was caused by the Victorian government, and that is one of the reasons that our children and our children’s children will be paying for this year for decades to come. Yes, there would have been the need for stimulus. The commonwealth government has certainly done that. But we note that even the commonwealth contribution has had to be enormous to Victoria because of the extended nature of our second wave and the lockdowns that went with it.

The scale, as I said, of this budget—$23 billion in deficit, $23 billion, and by the end of the fourth year $155 billion in debt—is significantly higher than any of the other states, particularly comparable-sized states like New South Wales. As a member for the last two terms of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC), as a parliamentarian and as a Victorian, what I am concerned about, what worries me, is that there is so much spending in this budget. There are so many different programs—so many hundred million-dollar programs, so many billion-dollar programs—that the ability of the Parliament and the institutions in Victoria to actually monitor, to account and to scrutinise this spending is going to be very, very limited. It worries me that we will see enormous amounts of waste. As we have said, it is fine to borrow to invest; in fact I strongly encourage the government to be borrowing to invest in productive infrastructure at this point. What does concern me and all those on this side, though, is the government’s borrowing to cover its waste. We know that is the case. We know consistently in the time of this government we have seen waste and blowouts in major projects in particular, and particularly in the transport infrastructure portfolio. We see on the front page of the Herald Sun this morning just 10 projects with blowouts topping $6.4 billion. That is an extraordinary figure.

Sometimes in Parliament, and particularly at budget time, we do get used to just rolling billion-dollar figures off the tongue, but by our estimates the entire suite of infrastructure programs is actually about $26 billion in cost overruns. That is extraordinary, and it is in that context and in the context of my comments about scrutiny and accountability that it is absolutely unconscionable that the Treasurer has failed to produce budget paper 4 for the state capital program. It was the first thing I did and I am sure what many do: I unwrapped the budget papers, and I thought, ‘I’ve got a dud pack. It’s missing BP4. Where’s the state capital program?’. But no, it was not just me; it was the entire Victorian populace who was missing out on that important information. I almost did not believe what I was seeing in question time when the Treasurer got up and tried to convince the Parliament that there was no budget paper 4, there was no information for the Victorian public on the enormous state capital spending, because, in the Treasurer’s words, ‘It was difficult for the proponents and the people building those projects to calculate the impact of COVID and things like social distancing and the changes that they have had to implement’. That is just extraordinary.

Mr Angus: He’s done the rest of the papers.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Thank you, member for Forest Hill—I was going to say, because there is still budget paper 3 and budget paper 1, the Treasurer’s speech. Somehow the Treasury has managed to produce these five glossy brochures. We have got the budget overview, we have got the suburban budget information paper and we have got the rural and regional budget information paper. We have got a gender equality budget statement, we have got the jobs plan, which is probably about 100 pages long, but we did not get a capital program. It is extraordinary that the Treasurer can stand here in the Parliament and say that ‘because of COVID we could not produce this’. Well, if that is the case, Treasurer, how can we trust anything in this document? How can we trust anything in this budget? If you cannot tell us what the costs of the huge capital program are and what has happened to those programs, then I do not know how you can particularly argue at all that anything in these papers can be believed.

The government has form on this, and this is the other thing that worries me. It is one thing to borrow for productive infrastructure, it is another thing to borrow for ongoing output expenses, and I worry that that is where we will end up. If you look at just that one line item in the budget paper on employee expenses—and I did this before; I pulled out a couple of the old budget papers—and if you look at what was predicted in the 2015 budget, the Labor government’s first budget, they predicted that employee expenses in 2018–19, for example, would be $22 billion. They were actually $3.2 billion more than that by the time we got to it, so that was 14.5 per cent wrong. Then from 2018–19 to the current budget, the increase for this year was 9.8 per cent wrong, so 10 per cent wrong on the employee expenses. Now, if we look at the projections for the out years, for the final year of this year’s budget the projected increase in employee expenses is 11 per cent. Given that every other budget year the government has dramatically underestimated its own costs with respect to the cost of the public service, that 11 per cent looks pretty conservative, I think, and it worries me that we will end up borrowing to pay for those expenses.

It is concerning that this government is avoiding scrutiny. We saw in question time the Premier putting up a complete straw man in response to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition about cuts to both IBAC and the parliamentary investigative committees. It is there in black and white in budget paper 3 that there is a 3.5 per cent cut to Parliament’s investigative committees, including PAEC, which I am on. It is in the appropriation bill for the Parliament, and that just sends a shiver down my spine as far as looking at accountability of this government.

There are numerous projects, as I said, and I am concerned about the propensity for waste. One of the issues that I want to briefly touch on, and it is interesting that the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change is at the table, is these renewable energy zones, which I have not been able to find too much detail on. But there is a significant amount of money for renewable energy zones. I continue to ask the question: we hear that renewable energy time and time again is cheaper than traditional forms of fossil fuel electricity generation, and I say again that if that is the case, if there is such a demand for renewable energy, why is the taxpayer subsidising it?

The minister talked about renewable energy zones in question time. We have some fantastic opportunities in Gippsland, in my own electorate, and the minister talked about taking advantage of the offshore wind resource in Bass Strait. Again, why does the taxpayer need to get involved? Because Star of the South, offshore from my electorate, has been in planning now for three years. They have got a couple more years of planning to go before they make a final investment decision, and not once have they said to me, ‘Oh, but it is only going to go ahead if we get some taxpayer funds’. They are going to do it anyway, so we do not need to be wasting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to have feel-good announcements from a minister and the Premier when the private sector is doing this anyway, and it will deliver, supposedly, cheaper energy for Victorians without us having to pay out of the pocket as well through our taxes.

Speaking of Gippsland South, I just want to mention a couple of other things, that certainly were good in this budget. The Minister for Education has bragged that they have spent nearly $9 billion on school capital in their term in government. That is great, and finally, after six years, some of that is actually getting into regional Victoria and into my electorate, with $12.8 million for Korumburra Secondary College. We funded the first phase of the rebuild of that school in 2014 when Peter Ryan, my predecessor, was here. It has taken six years of campaigning for that project to be finished, and now it is a $12.8 million investment.

A member interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: It was good work and a great campaign by the local community, which has really got behind that and fought all the way to the end. So that is good.

But Foster Primary School, which we also want to get finished off—no money for that. Sale College, which we are trying to get redeveloped and consolidated onto one campus—all I wanted from the minister was a bucket of money for design and development and for planning work, but we did not get that. We also did not get money for important fire brigade upgrades, fire station replacements, at Yarram, Mirboo North and Foster. Again, I have been campaigning for that for five years, since I got elected, and the government has consistently turned its back on the CFA as far as capital spending goes. Yes, there was money for 15 fire brigades, but based on what we have seen they were all the small rural brigades. A brigade in my electorate, Winnindoo, will get who knows how much money—because that sort of detail is not provided in the budget papers—to replace what was basically a tin shed with a portaloo out the back. That was absolutely necessary, and I am very pleased to see that there.

But we did not get any money for the South Gippsland Highway. We did not get the Coal Creek bends realignment funded—none of those. We did not get money for the cantilevered viewing platform at Agnes Falls, which is a very small—probably about a $700 000—project but would be a massive tourism boon for South Gippsland. I do acknowledge the funding going into Wilsons Promontory, our key tourism asset in South Gippsland. That is good, and I am glad the government has picked up on the Liberals’ and Nationals’ commitment from the last election of a predator-proof fence across the Yanakie Isthmus. That was a commitment we took to the last election. And I am looking forward to the tourism hub and accommodation details, because one thing we do need in and around Wilsons Prom is better facilities. That is acknowledged. There is also money for the Korumburra and Nyora train stations as part of the community use of vacant buildings—again no detail on how much it is. They are part of a package, so we are still waiting for information on that. But that is, again, catching up. The Korumburra station was promised $1.2 million about four years ago—never got it. It all went missing. So if you are not going to get money in a budget that is the biggest spending ever, then you are never going to get it. So I am glad that that is there, but it has taken a long time.

I might just say on the regions: I noticed the Treasurer in the budget speech claimed that the government has spent $26.2 billion in regional Victoria since November 2014. Now, you can cut this figure up however you like. I do not know whether that is a capital figure, whether it is a total figure, whether that is only looking at the general government sector or whether it includes other entities like the water authorities or not. Who knows? Who knows what spin the Treasurer has put on it? But I will put my own spin on it and say: I looked at $26.2 billion for regional Victoria and I tallied up what the actual outlays for the whole state have been since the 2015 budget. So I am actually giving them a seven-month advantage, because I am not covering that. The total, roughly, was about $365 billion, so the Treasurer is bragging about spending 7 per cent of total government outlays on regional Victoria. Well, we are 25 per cent of the state, so it is all well and good to stand there and say, ‘Twenty-six billion spent on regional Victoria; isn’t that fantastic’. Well, yes, it sounds good. It sounds really interesting. It sounds really great. It is 7 per cent for 25 per cent of the state, so I would invite the Treasurer to clarify exactly what that spending was on.

And of course we are debating the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020, and I touched on the cut in funds for the investigative committees. That is not good. There is a cut this year for IBAC as well. It is going to be interesting in the next couple of weeks doing PAEC and having ministers explain how a figure in brackets is actually not a cut. I must not understand the accounting that the government is using now because—

Mr Angus interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: No, I do not think they do understand it. But I thank everyone in Parliament for their work. It has been a very difficult year for them, I am sure, particularly with the health advice always hanging over our heads. I certainly thank them, and I also thank my staff for helping Gippsland South run and get the information needed in this year’s budget.

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (16:15): I think it is probably going to come as no surprise that I rise today with a great deal of pride to speak on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. It is our budget. This budget, like the five Labor budgets before it, was delivered by our Treasurer and is based squarely on Labor values. We are putting jobs, fairness and equality right at the centre of this budget. It is creating opportunities for all Victorians and of course setting Victoria up for our future.

But I guess it is fair to say this budget is very different. For one thing we are delivering it in November and not in May, and I think also it is fair to say this is probably the single biggest, most ambitious budget we have seen in this state’s history. Despite what some members opposite would have us believe, this is not a doom-and-gloom budget by any measure. This is really a budget to drive and steer and power our economic recovery. It is a budget which proudly draws on our strengths and builds on them—the strength of our people, of our resources, of our initiative. It draws on those strengths and, as I have said, it really, really builds on them. This is a budget for every single Victorian in every suburb, across every community, every region and every rural community. It is a budget that proudly does not leave anyone behind.

I listened to the member for Oakleigh deliver his budget reply speech earlier today and I have to say, I was quite buoyed by his reference to the business and consumer confidence report that Westpac has recently published. I too feel that confidence and I think that Victorians will feel that confidence in the budget that has been delivered this week as well.

This is a budget that truly does invest in our people and the health and wellbeing of our people, something that became very important to us this year perhaps like no other. As the Treasurer quite rightly has said, our success this year and in the years ahead now must be measured by not just the wealth of our economy but the wellbeing and health of our people. And of course as we know, this is a budget that is about jobs and it is for jobs, because at the heart of our economic recovery must be job creation. This budget has at its centre the jobs plan with a really ambitious initiative to create nearly 400 000 jobs by 2025. We know that before the coronavirus pandemic hit Victoria our economy was experiencing a period of very strong jobs growth. Unemployment was at just 4.6 percent in 2018–19. Victoria was outperforming the rest of the nation, and we had created over 500 000 jobs between November 2014 and March 2020. I have to say, if anyone is going to create jobs in this state, it is this Treasurer and it is this Labor government. We have the history, we know how to do it and we are delivering it with this extraordinary budget.

We know of course that the coronavirus, this global pandemic, has had a serious impact on all economies and all communities, and Victoria was not immune to that. Controlling the virus had to be our priority. As part of this response it was this Labor government that delivered $13 billion in investments to support Victorian households and support Victorian businesses to get through to the other side. Again, I do want to take the opportunity to acknowledge every single Victorian who has stepped up and who has supported our efforts in controlling this pandemic, who helped us. It was the biggest collective effort in this state’s history to stop the spread of the virus, and we have achieved it. I think we are now at day 26 of no new cases—or maybe 27; I am starting to lose count—and we are now in a position to really start to rebuild, to reset and to really reactivate the Victorian economy.

As I said yesterday in my matter of public importance, we are really in quite a remarkable place now. We have this opportunity to reset and build back better than ever. As we have seen with this budget, that is exactly what the Treasurer and the Premier have in mind, and it is exactly what they have set out to achieve. I too wish to knowledge the Treasurer and the Premier for their extraordinary leadership and vision not just with this budget but of course over the past nine months in steering us through the coronavirus pandemic. I also wish to acknowledge all members of the cabinet and the teams behind each of them and all members in this place who have contributed to making this budget what it is—just so ambitious and unprecedented.

We are taking this opportunity to address some of the cracks that appeared—some of the cracks in our economy and in our society that were laid bare during the pandemic. We saw this with casual and insecure work. We have seen it with mental health. We have seen it in housing, and we have seen it in gender inequality. But this big budget is drawing on our strengths as well—our strengths in education and training; our infrastructure pipeline; investing in industries where we are taking a global lead and which are pivotal to this state’s success; our world-class health system; new technology; tourism; and our position as the sporting, cultural and arts, screen and music capital of Australia.

Now more than ever it is incumbent upon governments to rely on the strength of their balance sheets to protect households and businesses. Now more than ever governments need to be supporting households and businesses, not holding them back, not being afraid of debt as those opposite would have us believe. Now more than ever governments must repair their economies, drive growth, create jobs and help businesses grow and thrive, and put at the centre the health and wellbeing of every single Victorian. This is certainly not the time to be talking about returning a budget to surplus. I think I heard the member for Ripon mention that in her reply speech today. It is fiscally irresponsible to be talking about surplus budgets at this time. The Reserve Bank of Australia and the commonwealth treasury secretary have urged jurisdictions across Australia to make use of record-low interest rates to help stimulate the economy, create jobs and protect communities. So now the singular focus of this budget—our single most important goal—is to get on with rebuilding our economy and not leaving anyone behind. As I have said, that is exactly what this budget sets out to do. Can I say then to those opposite: stand up for Victorians. Back Victorian households and businesses. Work with us to drive economic recovery. And for goodness sake, please stand up to your federal coalition colleagues in Canberra. We have seen them fail to deliver for Victorians. They have short-changed us on infrastructure, funding and of course the GST—the changes to GST now costing Victoria almost $1 billion a year.

With our budget I think it is fair to say that there is probably not one single community that is not supported, that is not assisted. I want to just touch on a few areas of this budget. One is health. We know that this is a core value, a core Labor value, and the Andrews Labor government is building a resilient health and mental health system that is world-class and responsive to the needs of all Victorians. We are building a health and mental health system that is also going to be a major contributor to this state’s economy and to this state’s economic recovery. Our investment in Victoria’s health and mental health system will drive employment opportunities, as we have seen in the health sector and the supporting health sector. It is going to promote Victoria as a leader in scientific and medical research and development. This is something that is so important. It is innovative, and it sets up future jobs for future generations as well. I will come in a moment to the extraordinary breakthrough fund that we announced this morning. We are going to build and redevelop hospitals and community healthcare centres right across the state, making sure that Victorians can access good health care close to home and family.

This year’s budget will deliver more than $5 billion—and $9 billion over the next four years—together with commonwealth funding, for services and critical infrastructure that will help keep our health workers and loved ones safe. There is a massive $300 million for an elective surgery blitz, and our extraordinary paramedics will be supported with an additional investment of $136 million, meaning faster and more efficient response and treatment for Victorians.

There is funding to commence works for a new hospital in Melton and for Warrnambool hospital, funding to redevelop the Latrobe Regional Hospital and the Wangaratta hospital, planning for a new women’s and children’s hospital at University Hospital in Geelong, and an expansion of the Angliss Hospital. There is funding to continue planning and to purchase land for new community hospitals right across Victoria—Cranbourne, Pakenham, Torquay, City of Whittlesea, Eltham, Fishermans Bend and Point Cook. It is so important to make sure that families can access health care close to home. For the communities of Corio, Traralgon and Wangaratta there is funding for residential beds for people to recover from alcohol and drug dependencies.

Closer to home, I am so proud that this year’s budget will also deliver on the promised more than half a billion dollars to redevelop and expand Frankston Hospital. My local community will see this wonderful hospital grow extra capacity for an additional 120 beds. It is just extraordinary. There will be dedicated maternity suites, dedicated mental health floors, children’s health services and oncology facilities. It is a tremendous announcement, a tremendous boost for my local community and such an important investment in health services and health infrastructure.

As I mentioned before, I am really excited too about this government’s Breakthrough Victoria Fund. This is groundbreaking. It is a $2 billion fund to drive investment in research, innovation and growth in key industry sectors. This is about really cementing Victoria as that international leader in research and innovation, as I said, creating that pipeline for thousands and thousands of future jobs. It is about drawing on our strengths and our talents here and supporting those people not just now but also in the future to make those breakthroughs that are going to save lives, drive our economy and hopefully change the world.

And on mental health we have such an important story to tell. This year’s budget galvanises our promise for a better mental health system for Victorians with nearly $870 million in funding. With the establishment of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System it was the Andrews Labor government that created this once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild and redesign our mental health system and make it work for Victorians, and we are doing that. We are funding the rollout of the interim recommendations of the mental health royal commission. I really want to thank everyone who contributed to that royal commission; they are going to bring about profound change in this state. Can I particularly highlight the contributions of those people with lived experience. It is so important to hear from people who have lived it, and we need to learn from them in redesigning this system so that it is absolutely fit for purpose and it serves the needs of our communities.

I cannot believe I have so little time left. On education and training, something that is so important to me, there is $3 billion for infrastructure. It includes money to upgrade and build a STEM centre at the Carrum Downs Secondary College in my community and also upgrades to the Nepean Special School. We are providing 4100 tutors next year, who are going to deliver additional targeted support for students who may need it following what has been a really challenging year for them.

On kindergarten—of course I cannot talk about education without talking about kindergarten—we will be funding free kindergarten for four-year-olds and also for eligible three-year-olds next year. Something that is quite close to my heart is that we are going to be funding three-year-old kinder for refugee and asylum seeker children from next year as well. It is a tremendous boost in education and in ensuring that all Victorian children are going to be able to access two years of early play-based learning before school.

I do not have time to do justice to one of our most profound investments, which is the $5.3 billion to construct more than 12 000 new homes in our Big Housing Build. We are continuing our massive infrastructure investment, kicking off stage 1 of the Suburban Rail Loop, which will commence at a new station near Southland, which I understand turned three today—so happy birthday to Southland station.

This is another great defining Labor budget, and I commend the bills to the house.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (16:30): I rise to make a contribution to both the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. I just want to start very quickly on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill. As I certainly support this bill going forward, I want to put on the record my thanks to all of the staff in the parliamentary precinct that we deal with, whether it is here in Parliament House or over at 55 St Andrews Place. They really do an extraordinary job. It has been quite difficult for them this year, doing things from home and having to reconstruct the chambers and things like that and just with all of the arrangements they have had to do differently so that we can continue on as best we can with the business of governing for our electorates and for the state. Certainly a big thankyou to all of the staff. We deal with the catering staff and we deal with the library, IT and property services, and I know that most members are very, very grateful for the work that is done.

Now I will move on to the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. It is very interesting that here we are, at the end of November, seeing this bill. I know that every other time I have spoken on an appropriation bill it pretty well has been in May not so long after it has been handed down. We have had quite a year, and now we certainly have quite a budget. It is interesting to look and see whether it is a budget we had to have, because we certainly do know on the one hand that the situation that Victoria finds itself in is fairly well unprecedented, but how that budget is put together I guess could be debated.

I just want to touch on the financial position. In Victoria the financial position prior to COVID was not strong. It was in fact quite fragile, and it has been revealed that we have actually been in deficit since July 2019. The state has had the rating agencies warn of the AAA credit rating being at risk, and we know if we lose that and go down to a AA credit rating, the cost of borrowing goes up, and we have extraordinary borrowing here. Borrowing is cheap at this time so the state is well positioned in terms of being able to borrow money cheaply, but the extent of the money that has been borrowed is certainly something that does concern me.

Further to the strain that we had on this already-fragile budget going into the start of this calendar year we had the bushfires. I thought, ‘Goodness, how is the government going to manage this budget?’, because it was already in the red. I am sure that the Treasurer was hoping in January that revenues would see it pop back into the black. But the bushfires certainly threw a spanner in those works. And then who would have thought that we would have a pandemic? COVID has interrupted our lives enormously, and the strain that it has put on the budget has seen the government having to look at things differently and having to do things differently.

Certainly as an opposition we were acutely aware of this. In fact even in May, when we were in the first wave of COVID and we thought we were on the way out of it, we put out our document Back to Work and Back in Business, which was very, very well received. Two or three weeks after we put out that document, which outlines our plan and our ideas for how we could go forward out of this, the whole system went pear-shaped and we saw the failures of the government with hotel quarantine, which absolutely let the genie out of the bag and the pandemic ripped through Victoria, particularly in Melbourne more so than regional areas.

Then later, in November, we put out our plan of ideas that we think the government should be looking at to go forward. I was certainly pleased to be able to contribute to that document. I was disappointed when I listened to some of the people on the government benches who talked about there being no plan. I suggest that they actually have a look because some of our ideas have already been copied. While their backbenchers might not be looking at it, I know that others are.

Through this pandemic we have suffered job losses like virtually never before. We have got unemployment at 7.4 per cent and underemployment—that is, not getting enough hours—at 13 per cent. So that is one in five—20 per cent—and we have families hit. To support these people that have been hit the federal government have done more than their fair share for Victoria, and with JobKeeper it is estimated that 60 per cent of the JobKeeper payments in December are going to be for Victoria. We are 25 per cent of the population, so that is an extraordinary amount of backup support. We know small businesses have suffered so many losses with the doors closed, some of them never to be opened again. To wander around the cities and towns in my electorate is just so depressing and distressing, particularly for those business owners. The confidence in small businesses in Victoria is really not positive, and two out of three Victorian small businesses believe the economy will be worse in 12 months.

In this context the government have decided to take on an extraordinary debt—$155 billion, which is way in excess of the other states. I am very mindful that at the same time the Andrews government has ticked up an enormous number of cost blowouts, and with at least five of their major projects we are up to about $23 billion in cost blowouts. We cannot be using this debt to pay for these blowouts and overruns. If I look at some of them, the North East Link has a $10.79 billion blowout. That is extraordinary. The West Gate Tunnel’s is $6.2 billion. Level crossing removals are $3.3 billion; it was the Auditor-General who told us that one. The Metro Tunnel is a couple of billion, and they cancelled the east–west link contract at $1.3 billion. There are many, many, many blowouts that have occurred, and we are talking billions of dollars. So I would be very, very disturbed to think that this unprecedented level of debt is just going to pay for some of the extraordinary overruns.

The backdrop, with my electorate being mostly a peri-urban plus country electorate, is that we have had a decimated tourism season. Bushfires hit it for six, and I remember being in Mansfield and then Alexandra and Yea at the time when they were closing down all the parks and sending everybody home because of the fires, even though Alexandra, Yea and Mansfield were not that close. They emptied those towns and those parks. It was extraordinary—I had never seen so many people leaving and heading south back to Melbourne. But in the budget those guys pretty well miss out. There is not much at all in there for those living in Murrindindi and Mansfield, and don’t they know it. The newspapers were straight on, saying they cannot identify virtually anything that is happening in those shires to support them.

Now, there are many tourism projects that could be invested in. I know at Lake Eildon, which could be the jewel in the crown, there are so many opportunities for investment and projects that they have got on the run that could be invested in. Mansfield is a town full of innovation and ideas, and they have always got ideas about what could be done to better their town. I know their hospital is in need of an upgrade. Their SES has been in the top five in the state for the last five years and still does not get sorted out. The police station needs work. The CFA are growing out of their premises as well. So we have loads and loads of those projects that need to be done, but we have not seen any evidence of investment.

At Yarra Ranges there is the Maroondah Dam. I would love to know how much investment is being put into the Maroondah Dam, and I implore the minister at the table, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, to let that be known fairly quickly. Pre election one of my commitments was a significant investment in the Maroondah Dam, because people not just within my electorate but from Melbourne ring my office and my colleagues tell me that visitors to the dam are so disappointed at its state and how run-down it is, with fallen branches, paths that are broken, barbecues that do not work and shingles falling off the little shaded areas. It has been a real disgrace. There is an investment finally being made, but I do not know how much, because there is no state capital budget. The part of Nillumbik that is in my area typically misses out. We usually see that the electorates of Yan Yean and Eltham get the funding for Nillumbik shire; it tends to go to those electorates.

Some schools in my electorate were big winners. The Upper Yarra Secondary College got $6 million for stage 2. Now, they know that this is only stage 2 of three stages, and I have already had a word to the Minister for Education and said that they are very much looking for the third tranche of funding next year. On Woori Yallock Primary School, I know that they had to have many buckets down one wing collecting the water on those heavy rain days, but they had a $10 million investment, and now all the other schools in the area that have failing facilities are wondering why they have missed out. School crossings are needed at Arthurs Creek. The investment in Kangaroo Ground Primary School is so overdue. Alexandra and Yea secondary schools—well, they are in 1950s buildings. I would have thought that in light of what we have seen with the differences in the outcomes between regional and metropolitan students—and facilities are one of these factors—that they may have made some investment where these schools are still in 1950s buildings. I can tell you I visited Yea High School; that is where I went to school, and not a lot has changed. I think that is certainly to their disadvantage.

There is some spending in the way of wild dog control, which is certainly needed. I am not sure how far it is going to go, but I believe that there is a new wild dog trap alert system that is going to be introduced to reduce the time allocated to inspecting traps and enable more humane treatment. I do not think anyone would be complaining about that, because wild dogs are a huge problem. One farmer told me the other day that his tally was, I think, 114 or 121 sheep that had already been destroyed by wild dogs.

Now, the Victorian deer control project—I am quite interested in the funding here, and I have been banging on about the deer because there are a million of them out there. If we look at the $3.6 million investment for this current year—and I know a lot of that is in the peri-urban areas; it is not really touching a lot of the issues in the High Country—that is $3 a deer, and I know how much it costs to send the guys out to do the targeted programs. There is $1 million extra each year for the next couple of years, so I am expecting that the government think they are not going to get in control of it quickly and that it is actually going to take them quite a number of years. Year 3 does seem to be getting more of the money.

I also just want to touch base on the education component. The government did pick up the tutoring that was in the Back to Work and Back in Business document that the Liberals put out in May. The government picked up on that. I see it is only going to go to 20 per cent of the children, and I know there will be areas where more than 20 per cent of kids are in need of tutoring. There is no state capital budget. Last year in budget paper 4 you were able to see that all the upgrades that were being announced, whether it was for $700 000 or $7 million, seemed to get 10 per cent, but because there is no state capital budget paper, we actually do not know when that money is coming in.

Now, I will talk about table 1.10, which actually demonstrates the politicisation of education by the Labor government. Of their spend of $1.9 billion, 55 per cent of that will be falling in an election year. You would think over four years you might have 25 per cent, 25 per cent, 25 per cent, 25 per cent. No—55 per cent in an election year. On essential maintenance and compliance—essential—47 per cent of that is actually happening in the election year. How about the school upgrades? Sixty-nine per cent of the new school upgrades are due to fall in an election year. Oh gosh, I am sure that is such a coincidence. It is concerning—

A member: It’s pork-barrelling.

Ms McLEISH: It’s pork-barrelling at its finest. I wish I could think of something like ‘sports rorts’ for education; I just cannot think of the words that would be so catchy. But it is concerning that the targets are not being met. The standards are not improving. Reading results have worsened—we know from year 3 and year 5 NAPLAN test results. There are more absences; they are on the increase for children in secondary school. The outcomes for year 9s are not getting better. We saw on the front page of the Age and it was evidenced in the papers that for Indigenous students the outcomes are not getting better. Student retention has declined, and those needing support for re-engagement have had poorer results. And of course if you look at page 177—you can find that in budget paper 3—there have been cuts to student support services delivery between the 2019–20 actual and the 2020–21 actual at a time when the students really need all of the support they can get. The government brag about some of their spending, but the huge debt is concerning and their failures in education are— (Time expired)

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (16:45): I too rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. As I start my contribution I just reflect on the fact that 24 November, the day that the Treasurer presented this fantastic budget to Parliament, marked exactly the halfway point of this term and two years to the day that I was unexpectedly elected to the seat of Box Hill. I must say it has been a very enjoyable and interesting ride.

I reflect on, particularly, this year, 2020. It has been a difficult year for everyone, a difficult year for all Victorians and people right across my electorate. Obviously, as I have mentioned previously, we have a very significant population with Chinese backgrounds. They were amongst the first community to react to the pandemic back in January, and we saw some of the economic impacts of that. To all of my community who have sacrificed so much through 2020, I do want to pay another special tribute to them and also give a shout-out to the healthcare workers. Box Hill Hospital obviously is a very large healthcare institution in the electorate, and they had a well-known COVID case. Its source was traced back to Box Hill Hospital, and their team, particularly in that COVID ward, has just done an absolutely outstanding job. The efforts that they have gone to to protect themselves, protect their families and protect everyone else in our community have just been nothing short of fabulous.

In dealing with the appropriation bill I have been listening quite intently to both sides of the debate, and I must say I am a little bit confused because there has been a lot of talk from the opposition benches about debt and deficit. It did make me turn to the federal Treasurer’s budget speech, delivered about a month ago, where he mentioned deficit once and he mentioned debt four times. If you look at the scale of the federal deficit and the federal debt as a proportion of the economic output of the nation, that is greater than the debt and deficit that this budget is taking on. I will read an important line that the federal Treasurer included in his budget statement. He said:

This is a heavy burden, but a necessary one to responsibly deal with the greatest challenge of our time.

These are the words that the federal Treasurer spoke, and I know that opposition members in most of their contributions have been praising the efforts of the federal government. Certainly JobKeeper and JobSeeker have made a big difference to those who have received them, absolutely. It has been both what the commonwealth government has done and then what the state government has been doing right throughout this pandemic to support Victorians, to support business owners, to support individuals and to support parents through this pandemic. When we talk about having to put in a budget that provides for those individuals, this is why this is such a special budget.

Ultimately this is not really a budget about debt and deficit. It is a question of priorities and where we actually want to be spending that money. It is not a budget where we are trying to get a surplus this year or next, just as the commonwealth is not aiming for a budget surplus.

What are our priorities? This is what this budget is all about. It is about defining what the Andrews Labor government is all about, and primarily it is about jobs. It is about putting money back into the economy so that our jobs can return. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers on this side, we aim to create 400 000 new jobs by 2025, with an interim milestone of 200 000 jobs by 2022. The way we are going to deliver these jobs is through major investment across a whole range of sectors, including $1 billion in TAFE, and that is absolutely huge. All that training and education is going towards the skills that are going to be building—not just in construction—and delivering the services that Victorians are going to need going into the future.

The $6.6 billion Big Housing Build package includes more than $5 billion in additional social housing. I have spoken to a number of people in the construction industry and they are just absolutely rapt about this project in the housing construction sector because the reality is that population growth, as outlined in the budget, is not as buoyant as it was, primarily because of the reduction in international arrivals. From the moment it was announced they said, ‘Great. We know where we’re going to be focusing our efforts over the next couple of years, because there are some real opportunities where we can work with the community housing sector to develop some fantastic outcomes and keep our staff in work’.

There is also the $619 million investment in Jobs for Victoria, which is really focusing on maximising jobs. One of the most critical elements of this package is the wage subsidy that is focused on women, and particularly on women over the age of 45. The research and the studies consistently show how much of an impact this COVID-induced recession has had on the female workforce, particularly on the older female workforce. As has been mentioned previously, we were able to continue with many of the infrastructure construction projects through the pandemic in a socially distanced environment, but that is an overwhelmingly male-dominated workforce, and it is a lot of the smaller, more nimble workforces and service workforces that disproportionately employ women. That is why this is such an important element to this budget in terms of making sure that we are able to bring women back into the workforce.

The other great initiative in terms of the jobs front in this appropriation bill is the new jobs tax credit. We have heard consistently about payroll tax being an imposition on business in terms of wanting to hire staff. This is a direct tax credit for employers who are paying payroll tax to hire new staff and get a credit on the new employees they are hiring. These are the measures that the government is introducing to stimulate jobs growth and to stimulate employment across the sector. In my opinion, this is what this deficit needs to be used for. It needs to be used to stimulate the economy and stimulate growth, and this is exactly what it is doing.

I would like to touch on what the budget is doing locally, because we have had some really important local wins, particularly as part of the school infrastructure fund. A number of these schools have really had very little done to them for quite a number of years.

The first one I wanted to talk about was Blackburn High. Blackburn High has received $9 million to build a new STEAM centre. Blackburn High has a fantastic leadership team led by principal Joanna Alexander. She herself has a science-teaching background. She is so passionate about STEAM education, just like me coming from my engineering background. It is so important to be promoting STEAM education within both our primary and secondary school systems. That has been their number one goal for many, many years, to have this STEAM centre where they can consolidate all of the classes and all of the STEAM resources into this centre for the students. Look, the school was just so rapt when I passed on the news, and I am really looking forward to that being built.

Another great school in my area is Box Hill North Primary School. They received $400 000 as part of the planning fund a few months ago and in this week’s state budget they received a further $3.4 million to expand the capacity of that school. The zoning of that school largely includes the Box Hill central activities district, which is rapidly growing, particularly from a residential perspective. This building will have the students ready to enter those new facilities by 2023.

The other school I wanted to raise is Chatham Primary School, another really fantastic community school. It has been there almost 100 years. It will be their 100th anniversary in about four years time. It is surrounded by local streets. It is just one of those great walk-up schools, but it is looking tired. It has been desperately needing an upgrade, and I could not be happier when I saw in the budget that $5.4 million was going to refurbish that school and upgrade the music room in that facility. They do have a particularly loud loudspeaker system at the school, and I am told that when the principal announced it to the students it was heard 3 kilometres away. They did try it out during Anzac Day. They had a special Anzac Day service and everyone in Surrey Hills was able to stand in their street while they broadcasted it over the loudspeaker. And they used it for another purpose this week.

I just wanted to take up a concern raised by the member for Eildon that for all of these school-funding projects the bulk of the funding was going to be delivered in an election year. As I said at the outset, we are halfway through this cycle. If the money is announced now, there is going to be a planning phase, which will take six to 12 months, followed by a construction phase. The schools do not want the construction to be in four years time. The whole point of this stimulus budget is to build and construct these facilities as quickly as we possibly can, but it does take a planning phase, which will be over the next six to nine months, followed by the construction phase, which will happen to be in the 2022 period, but it is the earliest possible time that we are going to be able to construct those projects.

I have only got a few moments left, but I do want to also identify the Suburban Rail Loop project, a huge, huge investment—$2.2 billion for early works on that project. That will make such a big difference to the eastern suburbs, with Box Hill a major transport hub for getting to places like Deakin University and Monash University. It is a fantastic budget, and I commend it to the house.

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 24 November.

Motions agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motions agreed to.

Read third time.

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

State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms HENNESSY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr FOLEY:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The SPEAKER: The question is:

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

House divided on question:

Question agreed to.

Read second time.

Third reading

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

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

Register of opinion on question

Ayes

Mr Andrews, Ms Kairouz

Noes

Ms Kealy, Mr Northe, Ms Ryan

Business interrupted under resolution of house of 24 November.

Adjournment

Bushfire preparedness

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (17:13): (4911) My adjournment matter tonight is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it concerns the dangerous fire conditions on the sides of VicRoads roads right across my electorate—and, from what I have travelled, right across a lot of Victoria—and the need for VicRoads to actually get on with their roadside slashing program. Whether it be the Murray Valley Highway, whether it be the Northern Highway, whether it be the Loddon Valley Highway or whether it be all the class B and class C roads in my electorate, I cannot effectively find anywhere where VicRoads have actually carried out their slashing programs this year. I would just like to quote a couple of emails I have got from constituents. One woman wrote to me saying:

Dear Mr Walsh.

Having driven from Cohuna to Echuca on Sunday and again today we are horrified at the huge amount of dry wild oats lining the roadside. In places as high as our car’s windows. One cigarette causally discarded and all the farms will be destroyed. On a windy day a fire will roar across the planes.

There has been absolutely no roadside cutting.

Come for a drive, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

Who is responsible?

They are setting us up for a disaster!

Arn’t we supposed to be “fire ready”?

I draw this to your attention hoping you will be able to do something about it—

which I am doing tonight, raising it with the minister for roads.

With a heat wave approaching, I hope it’s not too late.

A similar inquiry to my office was from a woman from Dingee about the same thing. She says the grass on the side of the road from Boort to Rochester is 1 metre high and very dry. She does not feel fire ready at all. She wants VicRoads or whoever is responsible—and it is VicRoads for this road—to attend to it before disaster strikes.

We saw in the East Gippsland fires and the fire in north-east Victoria this year that roadside vegetation actually acts as a wick that spreads the fire a lot further than it needs to. Irrespective of whatever fire management control adjoining landholders take with firebreaks or slashing of their property, the roadsides are covered in dry grass in my case and with native timber in other parts of Victoria. Those fires just spread and spread and spread.

I would urge the minister to give VicRoads an absolute shake-up and tell them to get off their whatchamacallits and get out there and slash the roads in regional Victoria to make sure that the fire risk is actually reduced. In some parts of the state it is probably almost too late. They will actually need to have fire trucks there at the same time because the grass has started to dry off, and we do not want to see them starting a fire when they are doing that slashing. Please, Minister for Roads and Road Safety, give VicRoads a good kick in the you-know-what and get them out there slashing the sides of the roads before we have an absolute disaster this year with wildfire. It has been a very good season rainfallwise and there is a lot more growth than normal, and I just do not think VicRoads are aware of how bad a corporate citizen they are and the risk they are putting the communities at across regional Victoria.

Transition support funding

Ms KILKENNY (Carrum) (17:16): (4912) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is for the minister to provide an update for the families of children with a disability in my electorate about what the recently announced $250 million transition support funding for students with a disability means for them. These are families whose children are attending the wonderful Nepean School as well as families whose children are attending local mainstream schools. Having spoken with students with disabilities, I know many of them are concerned about their transition post secondary school.

Some young people, like Sean Rich, who finished his secondary schooling at Nepean School and went on to undertake a certificate II in furniture making at Holmesglen TAFE, which is just terrific, have made a smooth transition, but others are less confident about their transition and next steps and could use additional support. Supporting our students with a disability to transition successfully into post-secondary studies is so important. We must support our young people living with a disability and provide them every opportunity to enjoy a strong, inclusive and fair future.

I must note that I was extremely disappointed to learn that Bernie Finn in the other place uploaded a post on Facebook recently which appeared to mock people with a disability. I know that for at least one family in my electorate he has caused significant distress. I received an email from a local family, which reads:

I was deeply appalled and very offended by the image posted by Mr Finn. This person is not fit to hold a seat in our parliament, let alone represent people with a disability in his role as Shadow {Assistant} Minister for Autism. It is unfathomable that Mr Finn would post such an image with no regard for the damage this can do; clearly he has no respect for people with disability or difference. This type of mockery hurts me, my son, his family, his friends and all Victorians who have a disability or support someone with a disability. No one deserves this type of treatment from a member of parliament.

No, they do not. And we on this side of the house are trying to remove the prejudice that so many people with disabilities continue to suffer and to build a fairer Victoria. I thank the Minister for Education as well as the Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers for all of their work.

COVID-19

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (17:18): (4913) My adjournment is for the Premier, and the action I seek is for the Premier to kickstart our city, the heart of Victoria. The city of Melbourne is the heart of our state. The city delivers a quarter of the state’s economic turnover, $104 billion last year, and almost 1 million people worked in, lived in or visited it each weekday. The city is our thriving economic and cultural centre. Now it is a ghost town, windswept and vacant. Empty shops only lead to more empty shops. Over one in four businesses are either closed or vacant. The Property Council of Australia estimates that office occupancy is as low as 7 per cent. Since March almost one in six city jobs have been wiped out. Many of the 17 000 city businesses are on their knees. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, Economic Impacts of COVID-19 on the City of Melbourne, shows that economic output in the city has decreased by 22 per cent and projects a decrease of 110 per cent over five years. The report also estimates that the pandemic will cost 75 000 of the half-a-million city jobs, and there will be a projected 79 000 fewer jobs over the next five years.

Our city needs a kickstart. New South Wales included out-and-about city-activity-boosting vouchers in their budget. Victoria’s budget, which is $155 billion in debt, has no city reactivation plan. In fact the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery has stuck his head in the sand and said there is not a problem. Labor just do not get it. The city needs its lifeblood back. It needs a returned private and public sector workforce, but hardly any of the hundreds of thousands of government employees based in the city are coming into their offices. Instead of including the 25 000 city-based public servants in the recent announcements of one in four workers returning to work, the Premier exempted them. To make matters worse, the public service has privately confirmed the secret plan to only return to a maximum office capacity of 50 per cent, with the remainder working flexibly. And discussions have taken place about rationalising office space. Melbourne City Council, by contrast, will have 25 per cent of its workforce back on Monday and plan to have nearly all of their workforce back as soon as the Premier relaxes restrictions. I call on the Premier to stand up for the city and pump life into the heart of our state’s centre.

COVID-19

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (17:20): (4914) My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Local Government in the other place, and the action I seek is to ask the minister to join me in my district of Mount Waverley to inspect the great works that have been done by Monash council to assist our hospitality businesses. The pandemic this year has undoubtedly had a huge impact on our hospitality businesses. I have spoken to many of these business owners and workers over the last nine months and have been very impressed with their stoicism and their drive to succeed. Businesses completely changed their day-to-day operations during lockdown, becoming takeaway only. Now they are back open again, and we are all glad they are. Now, with the investment in outdoor dining, this government is backing our hospo sector. I thank the Monash council for the work they have done since being awarded $500 000 from the outdoor eating and entertainment package. So it is fair to say that in Kings Way, Pinewood, Syndal and Hamilton Place the glasses are half full, and knowing our great local hospitality staff they will be very full in no time.

Harkaway planning decision

Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (17:21): (4815) My adjournment is to the Minister for Planning, and the action I seek from the minister is to come out to Harkaway to meet with the residents in relation to a proposed development called Rosemaur, a gallery which will be built in the area, holding up to $500 million worth of art. Now, on the actual gallery itself: most people in the community would be saying that they support a gallery of this size. It will be a fantastic tourism prospect; however, putting it where it is proposed is a very, very bad decision. The government went on advice that came from Casey council. The advice was in camera, with the Casey councillors meeting in relation to this a little while ago—this would be the Casey council that was sacked in relation to planning issues that are still ongoing through IBAC—and it is a very big concern when the recommendations come from a group of councillors who are currently before IBAC.

The government said that they consulted with the groups and the local families out in Harkaway. We sent out a survey through the area, and, as I know most in this house would know, when you send something out, if you get 5 or 10 per cent back, you are doing pretty well. When you have about a 70 per cent result coming from the one area, that means people are very interested in that topic. Now, it is only a small area, Harkaway. I was born and bred there. I have known the area for a long time. They want to put this on a dirt road. We have had 200 local residents respond. What we have found so far is 90 per cent of them do not support the project and 94 per cent said they were not consulted by the government at all. Ninety-four percent said they were not consulted at all by this government, who are taking advice solely from councillors who have been sacked. Ninety-six per cent say they are not happy at all with the government’s consultation. So today we are calling on the Minister for Planning to come out to King Road and go to where the location of the property is. I will ensure that the community come down and greet him so he can understand exactly why this is a bad location for this development.

Macedon electorate creative industries

Ms THOMAS (Macedon) (17:23): (4916) My adjournment is for the Minister for Creative Industries, and the action I seek is that the minister join me in my electorate to visit and inspect the old Kyneton primary school site and while there meet with some of the many fabulous creative professionals that call the Macedon Ranges home. Tuesday’s announcement that the site will receive $12 million to create new exhibition spaces has been very warmly welcomed and cements Central Victoria’s reputation as a creative hub in regional Victoria. The old Kyneton primary school occupies a special place in our region’s heart, and I am proud that this funding matches our community’s ambitions for this hugely significant site.

This $12 million is of course all part of the $34.7 million boost for the creative industries in regional Victoria and joins other announcements that will deliver more spaces for creativity, including at the Castlemaine Goods Shed and of course to build a national centre for photography in Ballarat, amongst others. It is clear that this investment creates yet another arts and culture experience in regional Victoria that will deliver very many benefits to my local community as we welcome many more tourists to come and visit us in Central Victoria. To the minister: I know that creative workers in my community enjoyed their Zoom meeting with you and look forward to welcoming you to our region in person.

Electric vehicles

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:25): (4917) My adjournment tonight is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action that I seek the minister to take is to back our electric vehicle industry rather than tax it. We see electric vehicles very much at the back of the pack in Victoria. Electric vehicles here are well and truly behind New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT, and they are just competing with Queensland and Western Australia. This is a really important thing for our industry. I know that many people in my electorate of Caulfield support the introduction of electric vehicles, and the tax that the government has imposed on electric vehicles is a disincentive for people to be able to transition to electric vehicles. We saw an article in today’s Age from tech-loving geeks confused by Victoria’s electric vehicle tax. What it says is that a business, the Girl Geek Academy, has purchased an electric vehicle—in fact a Nissan Leaf—for $50 000 on the basis of doing something for the environment and transitioning. They say that this new tax that the government is imposing would add an additional $4500 to the cost of that vehicle.

We want to encourage more electric vehicles onto the road—to transition to electric vehicles, not to discourage them. We want to back electric vehicles rather than to tax them. The government gives a lot of lip-service in terms of the environment, but when it comes to putting its money where its mouth is it is absent. This is a perfect opportunity for Victoria to be front of the queue, not back of the pack. That is what we are seeing from this government—a complete failure.

We need practical solutions. The coalition have released a zero-waste-to-landfill policy. We have looked at a cash-for-container recycling program. We certainly say solar for schools, solar for hospitals and more transition to clean energy. But the kind of emissions that come from the road, transport emissions, are the kinds of things that we need to be looking at. This government has been focusing specifically on energy emissions and has completely failed when it comes to transport emissions, where we can make a huge difference. So I do call on the minister to review this tax and to effectively put her money where her mouth is to ensure that we invest in electric vehicles—that we do not see Victoria lagging behind but we ensure that there are more electric vehicles on our roads and we create future industries, forward-thinking industries, around electric vehicles. This is a great manufacturing opportunity, it is a great, clever technology possibility, and ultimately it is an opportunity to get a reduction in emissions and more people to own an electric vehicle.

Suburban Rail Loop

Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (17:28): (4918) My adjournment request is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, who is at the table. I want to congratulate her on securing the landmark rail link to the Melbourne Airport. Legislation for this first passed this Parliament in the 1950s, and here is the minister who is going to deliver it. It was a great result with the Prime Minister in getting that announcement recently. The action I seek is an update on another generationally defining project, the Suburban Rail Loop. The Andrews government has confirmed the preferred stage 1 route of Victoria’s biggest transport project and a dedicated new authority to deliver it. The proposed $50 billion project will connect every metropolitan train line from Cheltenham to Werribee, create a new link to the curfew-free international Melbourne Airport and build three transport super hubs, at Broadmeadows, Sunshine and Clayton.

This development is crucial to Victoria’s comeback. I have launched a new model, the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0, establishing Broadmeadows as a prototype for economic and social recovery post COVID-19. The Suburban Rail Loop project comes on the back of the Metro Tunnel project, and this will enable a more than 70 per cent passenger increase on the Upfield line in the peak and a more than 27 per cent passenger increase in the peak on the neighbouring Craigieburn line. Both service the electorate of Broadmeadows. Melbourne’s north was predicted before the pandemic to grow to the population size of Adelaide in the near future. With the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board, which I have the privilege to chair, we have identified and prioritised key initiatives, including the redevelopment of the Broadmeadows railway station.

As the minister knows, there is also a V/Line service in there that connects into northern Victoria, and that is particularly important for getting that final connection. I do want to remind the house that the one-term Victorian coalition government did the reverse Robin Hood on this strategy and took almost $80 million, redistributing it down the train line to Frankston. That was to try and sandbag a marginal seat that they lost. The people of Broadmeadows got dudded under that deal, but we will remain undaunted and continue to pursue our commitment to delivering new industries, jobs and these vital transport links under the comeback strategy.

Oakleigh South Primary School

Mr TAK (Clarinda) (17:31): (4919) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education. The action I seek is for the minister to provide an update on the time line for construction of the project at Oakleigh South Primary School. This year Oakleigh South families have done an incredible job in supporting students to learn from home. I would like to say thank you to each and every parent in the Clarinda electorate for their resilience and dedication in 2020. As kids get back to the classroom, we want to make sure that they have the fantastic new learning spaces they deserve. As such, last week I was delighted to join with the member for Oakleigh, school principal Ron Cantlon and Oakleigh South student leaders to announce that Oakleigh South Primary School will receive $8.847 million to upgrade and modernise the school, including the administration and classroom building. This amazing investment builds on the Oakleigh education plan, which continues to deliver excellence in education to meet the diverse needs of the growing Oakleigh community. More broadly, the Andrews Labor government has built and upgraded more schools than any government in our state’s history, and the 2020–21 Victorian budget continues that record of investment. I thank the minster and am looking forward to his response.

Following matter incorporated in accordance with resolution of house of 24 November:

Suicide prevention

Mr NORTHE (Morwell) (4920)

My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Mental Health. The action I seek from the minister is to urgently review the state government funding amount provided to Lifeline Gippsland and double it at a cost of $135 000 per annum.

It is no secret that this year has taken a dramatic toll on our mental health and wellness. COVID-19 has placed enormous pressure on individuals in connectedness, finances, jobs and freedoms. These issues will have impacts upon mental health for years to come.

Suicide rates in Victoria are on the rise, with 530 people taking their lives so far for the 2020 year, and 391 of these were men. Regional Victorians are over-represented in these statistics, with 34 per cent being from the country.

In November of 2015, the government committed to halving the rate of suicide in Victoria, and whilst I commend them on this ambitious goal, it is obviously not tracking very well. Our suicide rates have only increased since then.

Lifeline Gippsland has been a leader in life-saving support for over 50 years and we need them now, more than ever. The then Minister for Mental Health last year even agreed:

Lifeline in Morwell is one of the oldest Lifeline branches in the country … and the team there do an outstanding job.

The minister also noted:

Certainly, when it comes to regional and rural Victoria, the issues that the honourable member raises are of, literally, life-and-death significance to hundreds of communities right around the state.

For many years I have advocated for the increase to Lifeline Gippsland’s funding, which is currently only funded to cover 12 per cent of its annual needs.

Their volunteers make a remarkable impact on the lives and families of those accessing the service. They are well placed to understand and implement additional measures to support our community in order to address the abhorrent suicide rates we experience.

Lifeline Gippsland complete a large amount of fundraising activities to fund their services such as op shops, plant sales, charity book fairs and selling bulk rags—but this is hard work and not reliable.

By increasing state government funding, Lifeline Gippsland will be able to directly:

a. vitally provide additional training to increase the number of crisis supporters responding to 13 14 11 calls

b. implement face-to-face peer support groups for our most vulnerable cohorts, including men and youth

c. paid shifts for unfulfilled shifts that are difficult to staff due to the timeframes such as midnight to 4.00 am.

Devastatingly, the new state budget handed down this week does not reflect any additional investment to Lifeline.

The government’s Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System was a huge expense to the taxpayer—$135 000 is not asking a huge amount.

Every single death leaves an enormous scar on the people and communities they leave behind—and the Latrobe Valley have experienced their fair share of devastation. We shouldn’t be putting a price on these lives and must do everything we can in order to protect them. I urge the minister to support Lifeline Gippsland in this regard.

Responses

Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (17:32): The member for Broadmeadows requested from me an update on the airport rail link and also the Suburban Rail Loop, remembering of course that these are two big and important projects. They are not just projects that we are getting going now to support jobs and economic activity in our state but—and this is the point that the member for Broadmeadows is particularly focused on—projects that can provide better transport connections for the northern suburbs of Melbourne.

As the member knows, Broadmeadows, as part of a future stage of the Suburban Rail Loop, will be a transport super-hub, being the place of course where our regional network from northern Victoria will come in and interchange directly with the Suburban Rail Loop, enabling people to change at Broadmeadows to go to the airport, to go around to La Trobe University’s Bundoora campus or indeed to continue on into the city.

I am very pleased to be able to provide an update for the member for Broadmeadows. I do acknowledge it is a Thursday and nearly into the evening, and I am confident colleagues may want to head home, so this might be one that the member for Broadmeadows and I can follow up separately outside of this chamber, because there is a lot to share about the terrific progress we are making on how we are planning both of these projects so they come together and how they interact with each other, because of course the Melbourne Airport rail link is a very important part of how we connect the northern and the western suburbs into the Suburban Rail Loop. When you also consider that there are around 20 000 people a day going in and out of the Melbourne Airport precinct for work—when things are on a more normal, non-COVID footing—the airport rail link is not just an important piece of infrastructure for those of us wanting to get to and from the airport for private travel or for business travel but is also going to be really important for the workforce too, because they will also be able to leave their cars at home and get to the airport by train for work.

Nine other members raised matters for various ministers, and they will be referred for their response. I particularly note that the member for Murray Plains raised a matter for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety about roadside slashing. I will also be raising that with the minister for roads. It is an important issue. The member for Carrum raised a matter for the Minister for Education, as did the member for Clarinda. The member for Mount Waverley raised a matter for the Minister for Local Government. The member for Brighton raised a matter for the Premier. The member for Gembrook raised a matter for the Minister for Planning. The member for Macedon raised a matter for the Minister for Creative Industries about the fabulous, fabulous project at the former Kyneton Primary School site that is going to be a great attraction for Kyneton and our central Victoria region. The member for Caulfield raised a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change regarding the electric vehicle charging that is included in this week’s state budget. I note of course that the member for Caulfield has just voted in support of that bill because the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020 have just passed the Assembly unanimously. I note the member for Caulfield’s support for that budget initiative.

The member for Morwell, in absence I believe, has also raised a matter for a minister. They will all be referred for their action and response.

The SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned.

House adjourned 5.36 pm until Tuesday, 8 December.