Tuesday, 8 December 2020
The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 11.06 am and read the prayer.
Announcements
Acknowledgement of country
The PRESIDENT (11:07): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.
COVID-19
The PRESIDENT (11:07): Members, I would like to update you on some changes to the special arrangements for the operation of the chamber that we have had in place for the last few months. As you know, masks should be carried with you at all times, but it is not compulsory to wear a mask while you are sitting in the chamber. It is up to you. But when you are coming in or exiting or wandering in the chamber talking to other members, make sure your mask is on.
The temporary orders agreed to on 15 September 2020 in relation to submitting material for incorporation in Hansard remain in place. Only the number of matters permitted in the standing orders for each item may be raised, be that in the house or via incorporation, each sitting day. Members should know that matters raised in the house will take precedence over those submitted for incorporation.
Divisions will continue to operate under the temporary orders agreed to by the house on 23 April 2020. Therefore members will be asked to stand in their place during a division. I remind members to come into the chamber through the doors behind me and exit through the opposite door.
Ms Symes: President, I would just like to draw members’ attention to Ms Lovell’s festive spirit and commend her for her efforts.
Business of the house
Standing and sessional orders
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:09): I move, by leave:
That standing, sessional and temporary orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the following to occur:
1. Order of business today
The order of business today will be:
Messages
Questions
Answers to questions on notice
Constituency questions (up to 15 members)
Formal business
Members statements (up to 15 members)
Government business
At 10.00 pm adjournment (up to 20 members).
2. Sitting of the house on Thursday
The sitting of the Council, on Thursday, 10 December 2020, to commence at 10.00 am.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Bill 2020
Food Amendment Bill 2020
Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Bill 2020
Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Royal assent
The PRESIDENT (11:10): I have a message from the Governor, dated 1 December:
The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Acts of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:
37/2020 Energy Legislation Amendment (Licence Conditions) Act 2020
38/2020 Food Amendment Act 2020
39/2020 Marine Safety Amendment (Better Boating Fund) Act 2020
40/2020 Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Act 2020
41/2020 Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2020
Human Tissue Amendment Bill 2020
Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) Bill 2020
Royal assent
The PRESIDENT (11:11): I have a further message from the Governor, dated 8 December:
The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Acts of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:
42/2020 Human Tissue Amendment Act 2020
43/2020 Justice Legislation Amendment (Drug Court and Other Matters) Act 2020
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Agriculture sector
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:11): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, what will the impact be and what assessments does the government have on inbound agricultural investments in Victoria as a result of Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade Victoria’s credit rating by two notches to AA stable? Will it send a positive or a negative signal to those wishing to invest?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:12): I thank Mr Davis for his question. One thing is for sure: the pandemic has impacted industries in Victoria significantly, but the resilience and commitment of our agricultural sector is to be commended. It has demonstrated that it has worked through restrictions, worked through border restrictions and worked through international market disruptions to ensure that food and produce continue to be in our supermarkets and on our kitchen tables, and indeed it is working with the federal government to ensure that our export has continued to be pursued and indeed enhanced.
In relation to the AAA credit rating, as many expert commentators have reflected, it is the duty of a government to use their balance sheet to ensure that people are employed and people’s family budgets and business budgets are protected and presented with the best opportunity to recover. I am sure that our agricultural sector will continue to grow. We are spending a record amount in this budget to grow the sector, encourage new people into the sector and promote technology, innovation and education to grow the sector. So whether it is growing our exports or indeed creating new products for the Victorian and domestic market, I am very confident that the economic recovery can very much be driven by the agricultural sector.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:13): With the greatest respect, I do not think the minister quite got to grapple with the question, and in that context I then make the point that I think it is actually a serious matter for inbound investment, and I ask: what steps will you take, if any, to reassure investors in Victoria’s critical agricultural sector?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:13): Mr Davis, I am very confident that the agricultural sector can attract international investment. The minister at the table, Minister Pulford, I and the Minister for Trade have a vested interest in ensuring that ag tech in particular can be homegrown and encouraged. I have got a partnership with Thrive Industries from San Francisco, which is all about making sure that those partnerships and lessons learned from the experiences in Silicon Valley for investing in innovation in agriculture are something that we are very much committed to, and the budget goes to our commitment in that investment. I have got a budget outcome in relation to attracting private investment for ag tech, and I will have more to say about how that goes in due course.
Regional rates reform
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:14): My question is for Minister for Local Government. When it comes to regional rates policy, governments of either colour have issued reports, reviews and recommendations but really taken very little action. In last Saturday’s edition of the Sunraysia Daily the editor wrote a column where he spoke about his sister, who lives in Box Hill. Her property is worth twice as much as his property on the outskirts of Mildura, yet she pays half the rates. So a person with a modest property in the most isolated part of the state is paying at least twice the rates of others closer to Melbourne. This is the definition of a broken system. What assurance can the government’s latest review give us that there will finally be some economic equity for our ratepayers in the regions?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:15): Can I thank Ms Patten for the question. As far as giving guarantees goes, Ms Patten, I have said before it is a fraught thing for any minister to give a guarantee about anything, but I do appreciate the question. I have got to say, comparing properties of the same value or more value in different councils does not provide an accurate comparison as it is up to each council to set rates each year within the mandated rate cap based on the services and infrastructure needs of their community. Councils use property values to apportion the council’s rates payable by each individual property in their municipality.
On the issue of rural councils and their sustainability, rural councils are very reliant on federal financial assistance, and we have been lobbying for more money from that fund to go to rural councils. I have had some really good interactions with the federal minister, Minister Coulton, who I have got to say is actually quite a pleasure to work with. He has rural council sustainability on his radar as well. And I think every other jurisdiction, every other state and territory, actually has indicated this to the federal minister as well, as something to be looked at hopefully in the new year. Rural council sustainability is an area that I am very keen to do some work on in the new year. The Premier has asked me to actually do work on that. I like the Premier. He is a good bloke, and I am happy to follow his instructions. I think there is some good work we can do.
I really take Ms Patten’s point. I have had a number of meetings with Rural Councils Victoria, the representative group, and they have said to me, ‘Please, no more reviews, no more chamber taking note, no references to committees’. They want something done about this issue. I have had a number of conversations with my colleagues, which includes Ms Shing, Mr Gepp and the ministers that represent regional Victoria as well, over the last few months. I am keen to fulfil the Premier’s request that we do some real work on this, not a review. It is an issue. I have had a number of conversations with rural councils, and when you take into account the rural councils in the north-east that have been through the bushfires and then COVID this year, it is not an easy task for them. I have got to say, they do a great job. They do a great job, the rural councils, and our government is keen to work with them on their sustainability, and I am sure we will find ways to assist.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:18): Thank you, Minister. It is encouraging to hear that you are lobbying the federal minister. But again I think it sort of went back to, ‘Well, councils need to weigh this up’. My new colleague Ali Cupper, who has been on local government for many years in Mildura, pointed out that it is a really difficult choice that they can either put up their rates or cut their services. I think you did allude to that. But what she was pointing out to me is that there is a simple change that could be made to the formula for the distribution of those federal assistance grants and that you as a state government could actually just turn the dial slightly. I am asking: would you finally look at taking that step?
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:19): I thank Ms Patten for her question. As I stated, I think the issue is that obviously it is a federal fund. It does get administered by the state, but there is a requirement that there is a minimum payment to each council. So you have councils like Melbourne City Council and Whitehorse, as you mentioned, and probably the amount of money they receive does not make a great difference to their budget, whereas if that amount of money went to, say, East Gippsland, Towong or Buloke, it would make a huge difference. This is a conversation that I am having with the federal minister. As I said, it is a federal fund. We have lobbied for more in that fund, but of course they have to have parameters around it as well, being a federal fund. But I think that is the sort of conversation that, as I said, most states and territories have really got their eye on. This is a national issue. As I said, I am really keen to work in this area and happy to get any advice from anyone who is keen to give it to me on this.
Ministers statements: veterans employment
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (11:20): I would like to update the house on the first meeting of the Victorian veterans employment and skills accreditation round table. Since coming into this role I have met many individuals and stakeholders from the ex-service men and women community that are very highly skilled individuals but for some reason have had difficulty in getting employment in the public and private sectors when they leave the forces. I actually met one warrant officer class 2 who went from the infantry to the SAS as lead of a water operations team. It is amazing, the amount and depth of understanding this particular individual has to have around the movement of water and how to set up water in a short time for temporary accommodation—an amazing amount of understanding in this area. But when it comes to applying for positions in this sector, no-one really understands it, so he spent quite a time unemployed, which is just a waste of an asset.
I have tasked this round table with identifying all of the roles within the defence forces we do not understand—I do not understand—and equating them with private and public sector occupations. The last part is, if there is any minimum training that may be needed for those particular individuals to work in those roles in the public and private sector, then let us identify that and let us make it easy for them to do that, because in Victoria we want ex-service men and women. We want this to be the destination state for ex-service men and women, because we want their skills. We need their skills as we build our way out of the challenge that has been the COVID virus. We want to get to a point where our state will guarantee ex-service men and women employment or skills, or employment and skills.
Budget 2020–21
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:22): My question is to the Leader of the Government. The government is budgeting to see state debt increase to $155 billion, and yesterday we saw Standard & Poor’s downgrade the credit rating by two notches. What will be the additional cost in interest payments of Victoria’s borrowings as a consequence of this downgrade?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:23): I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for his question, and this is obviously going to be a bit of a theme for the week because we have got three bills to pass that are relevant to the budget, whether it is the Parliament, the community or indeed the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020, so I am very happy to explore very specific questions in relation to those bills. I do not have calculations on me, Mr Rich-Phillips. I am happy to see if I can get some estimates in relation to the specifics of your question, but when we are talking about the AAA credit rating, I would reiterate my answer to Mr Davis in that we have many expert commentators encouraging us to use our balance sheet to ensure that people can get jobs and can manage their household budgets and ensure that their small businesses survive, and we will not make apologies for that. This is what the experts advise us to do, it is what our budget does and it is what is going to lead the economic recovery of our state so that everyone can prosper post pandemic.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:24): I thank the minister for her response and her undertaking. The secretary of the Treasury said at estimates last week that the cost estimate was around $10 million in additional interest per year. That was on the basis of a single downgrade, not a double downgrade. With the debt increasing, that is going to be more than $60 million over the course of the forward estimates period. So I ask the minister: what additional support could be provided to the agricultural sector in Victoria with that $60 million if it did not have to be spent on interest payments?
The PRESIDENT: Mr Rich-Phillips, I know it is related to the first question, but the first question was mostly to the Treasurer and now the supplementary is more to agriculture. But I call the Leader of the Government.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:25): Thank you, President. Mr Rich-Phillips, debt has never been more affordable, and these are responsible decisions that the government will make to ensure that we can make appropriate investments where necessary to ensure that more people are back at work and those people have new pathways to ensure that they have got stable jobs.
This budget has a record budget for the agricultural sector. I announced $115 million in this year’s budget, focusing on ag tech, export potential, our agricultural energy investment plan and supporting the next generation of farmers through investment in educational facilities. I would have thought that any minister in this chamber could spend millions of dollars in their portfolio, because we are all very passionate about making a difference in our portfolios. But this budget is about making sure that Victoria can bounce back from the economy, and the budgets we have been provided with will ensure that we do the very best we can to ensure those endeavours. The $115 million in the agricultural sector has been welcomed by the industry, and I look forward to delivering those programs.
Commercial passenger vehicle industry
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:26): My question today is for Minister Pulford, representing the Minister for Public Transport, Ben Carroll. The gig is up. The taxi company known as Uber is just that: another taxi company. Recent media reports have shown violence committed against their drivers, and there have been difficulties in pursuing charges against these people who have assaulted these drivers. My question, Minister, is: is it not time, for the protection of not only drivers but also the travelling public, that all rideshare vehicles should have cameras fitted?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:27): I thank Mr Barton for his question and his ongoing interest in this industry, and I will seek a written response from Minister Carroll for him.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:27): Thank you, Minister. Whilst we address the issue of cameras in commercial passenger vehicles, is it not now time for Victoria to fall in line with other jurisdictions in Australia and have cameras with sound and vision recorded to protect drivers and the travelling public?
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:28): Again I will take the opportunity to take that question on notice for Minister Carroll and provide a written response.
Ministers statements: Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:28): On Friday the Treasurer and I announced the first grant under the Victorian government’s $350 million Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund. As we said when we launched the fund, this unprecedented level of support for universities will be used to support capital works, applied research and research partnerships that boost Victoria’s productivity and the economy as the state recovers from the impacts of the coronavirus, and this project certainly delivers on that promise.
The Illumina-University of Melbourne Genomics Hub will be the first in the Asia-Pacific region. This $60 million project will bring together the very best expertise and technology in Australia to drive better health research and diagnostics in areas including infectious diseases and early detection of cancer. Located in Melbourne’s biomedical precinct, the hub will benefit from operating alongside more than 40 world-class biomedical organisations, leading hospitals and clinical research leaders, fostering deeper connections in the field. It will give local researchers access to world-class health technologies and support the analysis of vast amounts of data, which will give us a better understanding of human genetics that can be translated into new commercial applications. It will also create job opportunities for hundreds of medical research staff and interns, and support links between industry, research and education.
This project is a fantastic example of the opportunities this government’s new collaboration with universities provides, and I look forward to updating the house on the many other projects we invest in as we support our universities and our state to bounce back from the impacts of COVID-19.
Agriculture workforce
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:30): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. The Australian Open got the go-ahead last week to allow large numbers of international tennis players into Victoria. How can the Andrews Labor government justify bringing these athletes from some of the biggest COVID hotspots across North America and Europe yet bolt the door shut on those from some of the least-COVID-hit parts of the world, including Tonga, Fiji and Vanuatu?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:30): Although hotel quarantine is not a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, I can respond to the general themes in Ms Bath’s question. Her question is not directed to the relevant minister, because I do not have any responsibility for hotel quarantine, but the crux of her question effectively is in relation to seasonal workers coming into Victoria. This is something that I have spoken about numerous times in this house, and we have got numerous programs to attract many workers to fill these shortages. When it comes to bringing in international workers, the countries that are available via the federal government are only those within the South Pacific islands, so Fiji, Vanuatu et cetera. These are workers that can form a core base of our workforce in Victoria. There are indeed quite a lot of these workers here already because their visas were extended due to the closure of the international borders.
It is my intention to pursue options to bring in further workers. We are working with the Northern Territory government on a quarantine option up there. They have a facility up there called Howard Springs. It is like a camp where those workers could come and have rooms but they also have communal cooking and the like, which is an appropriate setting for these workers. In the meantime, you would know that hotel quarantine in Victoria commenced only yesterday. The priority is to ensure that our citizens who are wanting to come home can get home. I am not aware of any finalised details in relation to the Australian Open. I am sure that will become public in due course, but it is a falsity to say that that has been finalised in relation to that cohort of people.
My commitment to the agricultural industry is to continue to make every effort from the state level to ensure that we can get local workers and a group of international workers here to support that industry. I had a really disheartening meeting with the federal minister last week. There are several levers that the federal government have to help bring in international workers. The process for international worker pathways—
A member interjected.
Ms SYMES: I am not blaming anyone. They are blaming the states. I would like a collaboration with the federal government. What I have asked the federal government to do is use their levers to enable easier passage for international workers to come into Australia. At the moment you have to become an approved employer, which is not attached to the individual. The employers have to go through this process, so even if quarantine was available tomorrow, they would not be able to get through the federal processes for six to eight weeks. I have asked the federal government to address this matter as a matter of urgency. In the meantime anybody in the house that would like further information on the efforts to attract more workers to our harvest this season, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:33): I note the minister’s response. Minister, the Andrews government promised yet failed to give farmers the seasonal labour certainty they need by not having seasonal labour available by 1 December. You made that commitment. Peak harvest season is here. Livelihoods are at stake. Farmers are anxious. When will the Andrews government deliver workers to farmers?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:34): Asked and answered. However, I would like to correct a further falsity that Ms Bath has made in suggesting that there was any commitment around the date of 1 December. That is not something that has been provided. It is something that the Weekly Times published. We did ask them where they got that information, and indeed that was an unverified date. It would be our intention to get people—
Ms Bath interjected.
Ms SYMES: When you are dealing with a pandemic, putting dates on things is quite difficult, but I have been working since March to identify pathways for international workers. Ms Bath, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would realise that other states are just as challenged as us. This is not an easy problem to fix. It is something that we continue to work on, and I am very happy to update the house as we continue to work through this very complex matter.
COVID-19
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:35): My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The government has recently started the return of hotel quarantine for people returning to Australia, and many Victorians are nervous. We are told that the plan is going to be far more structured and better managed to ensure that we do not have a repeat of what happened earlier in the year. My question to the minister is: does the government have documented plans and procedures for the management of the new hotel quarantine program?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:35): I thank Mr Limbrick for his question for the minister for police. I will refer that matter to her for a response.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:35): I thank the minister for referring that on for me. My supplementary question is: Victorians are going to be paying close attention to this program and deserve to know how it will be run. Will the government make these documents about the plans and procedures publicly available?
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (11:36): Again I thank Mr Limbrick for his supplementary question, and like the substantive, I will refer that matter to the minister for police.
Ministers statements: early childhood education
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (11:36): I rise to update the house on how the Andrews Labor government is providing Victorian children with the opportunity to learn in languages other than English while attending funded kindergarten. There are over 160 kinders in Victoria participating in the $17.9 million early childhood language program, and research shows an enormous benefit in learning additional languages in the early years, including increased literacy, improved cognitive flexibility and deeper connections with different cultures. I am thrilled that 13 additional early childhood services will be funded to deliver the early childhood language program in 2021. These services will be able to employ a teacher or educator to deliver a language program for 4½ hours per week for children attending its funded kindergarten programs.
In the Northern Metropolitan electorate, President, which you share with Ms Watt, Ms Patten, Dr Ratnam and Mr Ondarchie, children at York Street Kindergarten, Glenroy West, will be able to learn in Punjabi. At Wilson Street Kindergarten in Brighton—Ms Taylor, Mr Erdogan, Mr Hayes, Mr Davis and Ms Crozier will be pleased to hear—children will be able to learn French. Mr Rich-Phillips, Mr Limbrick, Mr Tarlamis and Dr Kieu will be thrilled to hear that children at Friendship Square childcare centre in Cheltenham will be learning in Mandarin.
The early childhood language program is the first state-funded kinder language program of its kind, and up to 15 languages are currently being taught in our kinders, including Aboriginal languages. In addition, 10 services across Victoria are delivering a bilingual kindergarten program. Learning another language has fantastic rewards for young children, and it is yet another reason why Victoria is the Education State.
Agriculture workforce
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:38): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, last week it was announced that the government would provide funding to assist Tennis Australia with the cost of quarantining international tennis stars in Victoria. As a fan of the Australian Open, I am delighted that this tournament, which generates around $390 million for the Victorian economy, will go ahead. I ask the government: will the government now extend the same assistance to the Victorian horticultural industry, which consists of 3700 growers, supports 50 000 full-time jobs plus harvest labour and generates around $3.1 billion in crops, $5.4 billion in further processing and $1.6 billion in exports for Victoria, to allow Pacific Islander workers to quarantine in Victoria?
The PRESIDENT: The Leader of the Government has already indicated to the house she is not responsible.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:39): Thank you, President. I concur that I am not responsible for hotel quarantine, and I would make the point that I addressed many of these issues in my answer to Ms Bath. In short, the answer is yes. It is certainly the government’s intention to work through quarantine options for seasonal workers. We are working with industry on the contribution that they would be expected to make and what the state government would be prepared to make. In fact I have pleaded with the federal government for perhaps maybe a three-way partnership. They have outrightly rejected any financial assistance to support us in quarantine, so I will continue to call on them. But in short the answer to your question, Ms Lovell, is yes.
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:40): In a briefing that Ms Bath and I had last week that you arranged for us, Minister, it was clear that your main strategy was around local workers and particularly around the Working for Victoria platform, and we were advised that the sum total of people recruited to work in harvest labour through Working for Victoria was only 23. Minister, how many international workers do you plan to have in place by the end of January?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:40): These are complex matters. In a non-COVID year the workforce make-up for the horticultural sector is roughly 80 per cent international, but those international workers are not on programs that come through under a seasonal worker program. The vast majority are international backpackers, and obviously it is very clear that people are not backpacking around Australia from other countries as they have in the past. Therefore it is impossible to solve this problem by purely looking at importing labour. That is why we have an approach to make sure that we are having every effort directed to encouraging local labour. Of course there are a lot of displaced Victorians. I am very keen to encourage them into the industry. The industry are lifting their game. They are paying more. They want to attract local workers. I have got school leavers that are showing interest. I have got grey nomads that are showing interest. If those opposite wanted to actually assist, perhaps they would like to try and encourage people into this workforce while we work through these challenges.
Timber industry
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:41): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture and concerns repeated illegal entry into Victorian native timber logging coupes. Under section 77D of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004:
(1) An authorised officer may direct a person to leave a timber harvesting safety zone (and not re-enter the zone) …
(2) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a direction …
under penalties of about $3300. Illegal protesters know that once they enter a logging coupe work must cease for the safety of the protesters. This mostly affects small family businesses. Protesters are using this to hold to ransom logging contractors. Recently we even witnessed protesters marching logging machinery out of a legal logging coupe. Minister, how many times have native timber logging operations been shut down due to illegal protests since the passing of the Forests Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:42): I thank Mr Bourman for his question. It is an important question. I certainly want to assure the timber industry that illegal protesting activity will not be tolerated, and this government has indeed increased our resources to deal with this behaviour. Since the announcement of the forestry plan my department has significantly shifted its focus to on-ground management of protesters, including increasing authorised officers. This year over three-quarters of forest protests have been responded to and resolved on the same day. It does remain challenging when you get multiple protests on the same day, but I can assure you the notification that I receive of protests is pretty instant because I get notification directly from loggers to tell me that there has been an incursion on their site.
I have got to say the impact on timber industry workers is really profound. I spoke to timber industry workers last week up in Corryong, and their reflections of the concern they have are not so much about protesters. We talked about building protester safe zones where they can protest all they like, but the concern of timber workers is that they might kill someone, that they do not know who is there because the tactics that protesters are using are chaining themselves to equipment, doing tree sits and doing some really inappropriate behaviour in people’s workplace. I know delivering the forestry plan is challenging. It is hard on the timber workers. The least we can do is make sure they can get on and do their job whilst it is still available in the current conditions of what they are doing.
We will continue to have a concerted effort, and I am seeking advice from my department to identify additional ways that we can strengthen the current enforcement framework. For example, banning orders are something that I am particularly interested in. In relation to fines in responding to protesters, I am advised that 66 fines worth hundreds of thousands of dollars have been issued to forest protesters this year. Hopefully there are no more for the remainder of this year.
Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (11:45): I thank the minister for her answer. Minister, I have had my staff searching for this over the past fortnight, and they have not been able to find a single case where an illegal protester has been charged under this new law. How many illegal protesters have been charged under section 77D of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:45): The information I have on hand, Mr Bourman, is in relation to the fines that have been issued. There are also fines that were issued under the breaching of the COVID directions under the chief health officer’s orders et cetera. I might seek some advice from the department in a breakdown of different penalties, fines et cetera that have been applied this year, for your reference.
Ministers statements: Premier’s Awards for Health and Medical Research
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (11:45): Yesterday I had the great pleasure to announce the winners of the 26th annual Premier’s Awards for Health and Medical Research. It was wonderful to join Federation University Australia vice-chancellor Professor Duncan Bentley and the awards’ MC, Associate Professor Misty Jenkins from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, for the awards ceremony.
In a year that has thrust medical research into the global spotlight, it was wonderful to be able to recognise and celebrate some of Victoria’s best and brightest. A big congratulations is due to the winner of the top honour, the Premier’s Research Excellence Award, Dr Simone Park from the University of Melbourne and the Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, for her work on local immune protection against cancer and infection. Dr Park’s research has revealed how local immune cells inhibit cancer and infection, with encouraging evidence for further exploration of tissue resident memory cells as targets of future cancer therapy and vaccines. Dr Park was awarded $20 000 and a trophy designed by Geelong-based Indigenous art collective Wathaurong Glass.
Other winners were Cammi Murrup-Stewart of Monash University as the recipient of the Aboriginal research award; Dr Melissa Lee from the University of Melbourne and Murdoch Children’s Research Institute for the clinical research award; Dr Xinyang Hua from the University of Melbourne for the health services award; and Dr Jesse Young, also from the University of Melbourne, for the public health award.
Congratulations to this year’s award winners and to the finalists and thousands of other researchers who devote their careers to helping people, whether they live next door or on the other side of the world. In my time as minister in this area I have been struck by the depth and character of our medical research community. The work, the collaboration, the willingness to undertake vital work to benefit our community and indeed the world is truly admirable. Victorian researchers improve lives and save lives with their hard work, inspiration and sustained excellence. That is why we are so pleased to back them every step of the way.
Questions on notice
Answers
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (11:48): I have 84 answers to questions on notice: 1134–41, 1818, 1821, 1879, 2044, 2189, 2219, 2221, 2223, 2265–75, 2277, 2329, 2331, 2350, 2353–62, 2370, 2374, 2492, 2540, 2649, 2802–3, 2900, 2902, 2954–5, 2959, 2984–5, 3021–48, 3105.
Questions without notice and ministers statements
Written responses
The PRESIDENT (11:48): Regarding questions today: Mr Rich-Phillips’s first question to Ms Symes, two days; Mr Barton to the Minister for Public Transport, for Ms Pulford, two days, question and supplementary; Mr Limbrick to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for Ms Tierney, two days, question and supplementary; and the last one, Mr Bourman, the supplementary, one day.
Constituency questions
Western Victoria Region
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:48): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health and relates to nurse-to-patient ratios in hospitals. I was recently contacted by a constituent who is a nurse and works at a Colac hospital. She and her colleagues are extremely concerned about the nurse-to-patient ratio within the acute care unit where they work. It is a high-need unit, tending to patients, but not only that, also dealing with the emotions of their families as well. I have been told that her unit only has one nurse on duty for every six patients and that staff regularly have to work well past their shift to be able to complete their work. This woman also told me that the hospital and its staff are doing the best they can. However, they need more nurses to fill this void. My question is: notwithstanding changes to nurse-to-patient ratios in this place recently, can the minister advise whether they will revise nurse-to-patient ratios, especially in regional areas, to a level where staff can tend to their patients in a timely manner?
Northern Victoria Region
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11:50): My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Earlier this year a serious fire broke out in Bendigo’s streamside reserve, which runs from Bendigo-Tennyson Road to the Epsom sports precinct. The fire took significant time to bring under control due to extremely high fuel loads. After the fire the local community expressed their anger and dismay about the poor fuel load management at the reserve. A constituent has contacted me to express concern about the fuel loads that have again accumulated in the reserve, saying the grass is over 6 feet high on either side of a bicycle track and another fire has the potential to be catastrophic. Will the minister immediately direct Parks Victoria to reduce fuel loads in the reserve to ensure another serious fire in the streamside reserve does not occur this year?
Western Metropolitan Region
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:50): My question is for the Treasurer in the other place, and it is from a resident, Rhiannon Cammeron. Why is the vacant residential land tax not being enforced? With only a small percentage of landowners self-reporting, why isn’t the government auditing owners? With a self-reporting tax system, auditing is required. The government is failing to address this major issue while losing millions of dollars in revenue. The Age recently reported that landlords and owners are leaving thousands of residential properties vacant across the city as the government fails to enforce a levy on empty properties. Water consumption is a key indicator of property use, and the data shows that 24 000 properties consumed zero water over 12 months. The thousands of empty properties could house more than 185 000 people. In 2017–18 almost 500 property owners self-declared 716 vacant property sites to the State Revenue Office. In 2018–19 the numbers fell to— (Time expired)
Western Victoria Region
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11:52): My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. In the budget the government announced an average of $19.6 billion per year in investment into infrastructure yet only $300 million for regional roads maintenance. Underfunded road and rail infrastructure across my electorate inhibits agricultural productivity, which the region depends on as its primary driver of economic activity. President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, David Jochinke, recently said:
Regional roads continue to crumble and freight trains crawl to port at a huge cost to industry. We see billions flowing to metro and passenger rail projects, yet critical freight corridors continue to be ignored.
My question to the minister is: what is the government doing to lower regional rail and road freight costs for Western Victorian businesses?
Northern Victoria Region
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:52): My constituency question is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, what are you doing, or what will you do, to ensure Victorian shooting associations are recognised as legitimate by interstate regulators? The National Firearms Agreement was intended to make firearms laws consistent, but sometimes it seems we only need consistency when making things hard for firearms owners. Recently the New South Wales Police Force advised gun clubs and sporting shooters along the border to cut ties with Victorian associations as it will no longer recognise affiliation with the interstate peak bodies. This means New South Wales licence-holders will not be able to attend Victorian gun clubs to satisfy licence requirements. It threatens access to local competition, which undermines the pathways to national and international competition. Victorian clubs will have fewer members and less attendance and will have to split their clubs where they have facilities on both sides of the border. It is a departure from the national standards, a needless headache for border communities and yet another example of why the regions need to be able to govern themselves.
Northern Metropolitan Region
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (11:53): My constituency question is to the new Minister for Mental Health, and it concerns the proposed drug-injecting room near the Queen Victoria Market in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. In June 2020 the Andrews government announced they would build a drug-injecting room at the Cohealth facility located in Victoria Street, Melbourne, just down the road from the Queen Victoria Market. This is a slap in the face to the traders at the Queen Victoria Market and also the City of Melbourne, whose councillors rejected that site. In September I tabled a petition with 249 names asking the government to reverse this decision and not put it near one of Australia’s largest tourist icons, the Queen Victoria Market. But last week at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee we learned the Minister for Health wants it there and has not considered any other sites. So my question for the minister is: will the Minister for Mental Health respect the local residents, the council, the market traders and the shoppers and rule out this location near the Queen Victoria Market for a drug-injecting room, or will he just follow the health minister’s lead?
Northern Metropolitan Region
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:54): My constituency question is for the Minister for Planning. The MCG Trust, the Melbourne Cricket Club and the Yarra Park trust have changed the regulations for the precinct around the MCG known as Yarra Park to ban amplified sound. Yarra Park is an entertainment precinct. Under these changes it will be impossible to have entertainment. All the outdoor events that could have been hosted in a COVID-safe manner cannot go ahead. These events bring in millions of dollars of investment. We need investment in outdoor events to help rebuild the economy. The MCC sprang this change on stakeholders in late November. Moving the goalposts is just not cricket. Will the minister instruct the MCG Trust and the Yarra Park trust to reverse their decision and allow amplified sound at Yarra Park?
Western Metropolitan Region
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (11:55): My constituency question is to the Minister for Planning, and it concerns a letter that I received yesterday from the mayor of Melton, Cr Kathy Majdlik—and I congratulate her and the deputy mayor, Cr Goran Kesic, on their recent election; it is a very exciting time for them and, I am sure, a very exciting time for the City of Melton. She wrote:
The City of Melton has expressed serious concern and extreme disappointment over a Victorian Government decision that enables Ravenhall landfill to become the dumping ground for the contaminated West Gate Tunnel soil.
…
I’m absolutely shocked that the State Government thinks a proposal like this is appropriate. We’re talking about toxic soil and hundreds of truck movements every day in an area where families live and work.
…
Our residents do not deserve this. Council advocated extremely hard to stop the Ravenhall tip …
I agree with the mayor. Minister, will you reverse this disgraceful decision?
Northern Victoria Region
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (11:57): My question is to the Minister for Ambulance Services and follows an 18 November Herald Sun article. That article contained commentary from Ambulance Victoria insiders and the ambulance union about dangerous, life-threatening increases in ambulance response times and worsening shortages in the availability of suitable responders and made very specific reference to the Loddon Mallee region in my electorate. Former Minister Mikakos answered a number of my previous questions on these issues by noting, not unreasonably, that the Andrews government has significantly increased funding for ambulance services. However, it is clear that irrespective of that funding the already serious situation of ambulance services in my electorate is now deteriorating even further. I therefore ask: what specific actions will the government be taking from this point forward to urgently and sustainably improve ambulance response times and the availability of suitably trained paramedics in Northern Victoria?
Eastern Victoria Region
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (11:58): My question today is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it relates to the bike lane along Marine Drive in Safety Beach. The bike lane along that section of road is very, very busy, used by cyclists particularly on the weekend but also by local residents during the week. I have had several constituents who live in that precinct contact me talking about the dangers of riding a bike along that road given that the bike lane is a broken bike lane in and around road intersections but then disappears for the balance of the road. What the cyclists would like is a hard line or a line that extends for the duration of the road between Safety Beach and Dromana or Mount Martha and Dromana so that it is clear where the bikes can ride safely and where the cars can drive.
Eastern Metropolitan Region
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:59): My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place. I have had representations from members of my community regarding the quality of many roads in and around Box Hill Central. In particular the major thoroughfare at the intersection of Whitehorse Road and Station Street has degraded to the point where there are major cracks, significant bumps and a surface that is overall substandard. My question is: will the minister direct VicRoads to resurface the intersection of Whitehorse Road and Station Street in Box Hill, and if so, when will the works commence?
Eastern Victoria Region
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11:59): My constituency question is for the Minister for Housing, and it relates to an urgent social housing transfer through the Department of Health and Human Services. Nadine Holland and her five-year-old son are currently waiting for a priority transfer so they can relocate from Gippsland to Geelong, where they have close family support. Diagnosed with a heart condition, breathing issues and sleep apnoea, her son is required to attend frequent specialist appointments at the Royal Children’s Hospital. Nadine has reported that her current house is mouldy, damp and deleterious to her son’s health. I am advised that the transfer application has already been submitted to DHHS and it has also been approved, but there is a delay. Minister, will you expedite my constituent’s request for social housing in Geelong with the utmost urgency?
Southern Metropolitan Region
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:00): My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and it relates to a constituent of mine in Hawthorn who contacted my office last week very distressed because she got an energy bill of $990. It was a couple of weeks ago actually. She was understandably really distressed and upset about this high energy bill. She actually spoke to the energy company as well as the energy and water ombudsman to see what they can do. Now, she has had no real response. Actually she got an extraordinary response from the energy provider to say that it was not their fault, it was because of the COVID restrictions and the decisions by the Andrews government. But I am not blaming the government per se in relation to this. She assures me that there was nothing going on in her house that could have caused these exorbitant fees. These elderly people need more assistance with their energy bills, and I would ask the minister to look into complaints like this that have gone to the ombudsman.
Southern Metropolitan Region
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:01): My matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it concerns the Suburban Rail Loop—in fact it is in her capacity as the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop. What I seek from her is the release of plans and details—schematic is not enough but actual close plans and details—of the Suburban Rail Loop, specifically in my electorate in and around Burwood, where it is proposed that a station be located. The details of this are very unclear, and councils and the community are entitled to see these things. They are entitled to have input. The government is now letting contracts for a proposal or a plan with billions of dollars behind it, and yet the actual plan is not yet complete. This process is like starting to build the house before the architect has finished the drawings. So I say the government should, for the aspect of my electorate of Burwood, release the plans, release the details and if there is a business case, which they seem determined to keep secret, release that too.
Petitions
Following petitions presented to house:
The Boulevard, Ivanhoe, Christmas lights
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the cancellation of the 2020 Ivanhoe Boulevard Christmas lights display.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister for Local Government to direct Banyule City Council’s Mayor, Rick Garotti, to reinstate the Ivanhoe Boulevard Christmas lights display for Christmas 2020.
By Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (254 signatures).
Laid on table.
Dr BACH: I move:
That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
COVID-19
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the negative impacts of wearing a face mask. Under COVID-19 emergency measures it is mandatory to wear a face mask in areas where the 1.5 metre social distancing rule cannot conventionally be maintained. This mandate has also been extended to uncrowded outdoor areas. This rule has little or no impact on the spread of the virus. Mask wearing has caused mental distress to many citizens of Victoria and subsequently led to the deterioration of relations between the public and the police.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to amend the rule for the mandatory wearing of a face mask, limiting the mandate to indoor areas and public-transport only, for the remainder of the special COVID-19 provisions.
By Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (906 signatures).
Laid on table.
Dr CUMMING: I move:
That the petition be considered on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Tarneit train station
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that an overbridge connecting Platforms 1 and 2 at Tarneit Railway Station, on the Derrimut Road side, is needed.
Currently, commuters have to park their cars and walk almost a kilometre to get to either side of the railway station, which is very inconvenient, especially to the elderly and families with young children.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister for Public Transport, the Honourable Ben Carroll, to facilitate the construction of an overbridge connecting Platforms 1 and 2 at Tarneit Railway Station.
By Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (244 signatures).
Laid on table.
Mr FINN: I move:
That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Teacher education
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the current absence of undergraduate Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programs to qualify school teachers to teach in the curriculum areas of Technologies and Vocational Education and Training (VET) in Victoria.
There is already a severe shortage of VET and Technologies teachers. The recent suspension of the only ITE program dedicated to the preparation and qualification of VET and Technologies teachers, means it is now no longer possible to produce professionally qualified teachers in these teaching areas.
The closure of this program, together with a long-standing skill shortage of VET and Technologies teachers will make it practically impossible for Victorian schools to resource these curriculum areas with suitably skilled and qualified teachers going forward.
Consequently, the quality of education available for Victorian school students in VET and Technologies subjects is set to diminish dramatically, while many current VET and Technologies programs in schools will close. Without VET and Technologies teachers to engage students and nurture curiosity and innovation, students will be deprived of critical foundations and thus, less likely to pursue technical, STEM and/or vocational pathways. This will have flow on implications for industry and the economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Department of Education and Training to intervene and support the establishment of one or more Initial Teacher Education programs in Victoria, capable of producing a sustainable supply of high-quality and professionally qualified Victorian Institute of Teaching registered Vocational Education and Training and Technologies teachers to resource Victorian schools.
By Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (627 signatures).
Laid on table.
Local government rates
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that during a time of unprecedented financial hardship and community stress Victorian councils are misrepresenting state legislation to deny ratepayers access to financial relief. Section 171(a) of the Local Government Act 1989 allows residents to apply for cuts to all or part of their rates if paying those rates would inflict financial hardship on the ratepayer or their immediate family.
Local councils in Victoria use the word “hardship” in their policies and application forms to offer ratepayers deferrals of rates, payment plans and waivers on interest. This mis-use of the word “hardship” by a third tier of government, wrongly implies to ratepayers that there is no other avenue of rate relief available. Furthermore councils are now replying to ratepayers with headlines saying ‘application granted’, when in fact the council has refused to cut rates and is only offering a deferral or payment plan. This significantly damages the community’s trust in their local council. It further undermines the intent of the hardship provisions in the Local Government Act 1989 and reflects poorly on the integrity of the Victorian State Government and local councils.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister for Local Government, the Honourable Shaun Leane, and the Government to undertake to make no changes to the Local Government Act 1989 that removes the right to hardship assistance, work with local councils to review and redraft their policies by 30 December 2020 relating to rate payment assistance to reflect section 171A of the Local Government Act 1989, and require local councils to issue public apologies for their misuse of the term ‘hardship’ and to report the number of hardship applications received and granted at each local council meeting.
By Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (86 signatures).
Laid on table.
Police conduct
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the 69 recommendations outlined in the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission (IBAC) Committee’s report, dated September 2018, in relation to the Inquiry into the external oversight of police corruption and misconduct in Victoria.
The Government’s response to this report was due within six months. However, the Government delayed acting on these recommendations, waiting for the recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (the ‘Lawyer X’ matter).
Victorians now find themselves in exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 lockdown measures. COVID-19 directives are enforced by Victoria Police and a significantly expanded Protective Services Officers (PSO) division. The opportunity to make complaints about any potential misconduct is more essential than ever before.
We urge the Victorian Government to consider and implement the recommendations from the 2018 IBAC Committee inquiry as a matter of urgency. Victorians must be able to make complaints about police and PSO conduct to an independent body to avoid any conflict of interest. Victoria Police is currently the only agency able to investigate complaints about police. This is a matter of accountability, human rights, and rule of law.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to urgently consider and implement the recommendations delivered in the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Committee’s 2018 report on their Inquiry into the external oversight of police corruption and misconduct in Victoria.
By Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (149 signatures).
Laid on table.
COVID-19
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the restrictions imposed on birthing women by hospitals during the current COVID-19 pandemic, disallowing doulas to be present at the birth of their client’s baby.
The Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) released a statement regarding doulas and COVID-19 noting that “Doulas are not visitors and should not be blocked from caring for patients in the antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum period. Most doulas have been contracted by patients weeks to months ahead of time and have established provider relationships”. Doulas are recognized by AWHONN and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as essential personnel and part of the maternity care team.
AWHONN supports doulas as partners in care and acknowledges their ability to provide physical, emotional, and partner support to women and opposes hospital policies that restrict the presence of a doula in the inpatient setting during an infectious disease outbreak.
Doulas are not visitors and it is time we let women have their doula present with them in hospital at the birth of their baby.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister for Health, the Hon Martin Foley MP, and the Department of Health and Human Services to urgently review hospital restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic and allow doulas to be present as part of the maternal care team in the birthing of a woman’s baby.
By Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (518 signatures).
Laid on table.
Alpine health services
TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF VICTORIA
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the need to improve the quality of medical and emergency care available within Alpine Shire and surrounds, with one on‐call doctor servicing Bright, Mount Beauty and Myrtleford Hospital. Residents of these areas are not receiving emergency support within adequate times and are being put in dangerous situations during times of medical urgency. First Responders such as Community Emergency Response Teams or Patient Transport Services need to operate outside the hours of 9.00 am to 5.00 pm and emergencies are not being treated as an emergency.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Minister of Health, the Hon Jenny Mikakos MLC, to investigate the current state of health services in Alpine Shire and its surrounding areas and make the necessary changes required to ensure that adequate and quality health services can be provided.
By Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (316 signatures).
Laid on table.
Greenvale roads upgrades
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the inadequate arterial road infrastructure, increased traffic volumes and ongoing safety issues on Mickleham Road and Somerton Road in Greenvale.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to prioritise the duplication upgrades of Mickleham Road and Somerton Road in Greenvale.
By Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (36 signatures).
Laid on table.
Ms PATTEN: I move:
That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Live music venues
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that Victoria’s famous music scene is on the brink of collapse and there is no relief in sight. We are calling on the Government to step in and save our proud music culture by preserving the venues where artists play.
Live music means mass gatherings and it will be many months before our state’s music venues can safely reopen doors at viable capacities. In the meantime, our venues are being crippled by mounting debt including rent, mortgage payments, bills and insurance and without Government intervention, many of these venues will be forced to close their doors permanently.
This will have a devastating effect on Victoria’s creative economy and cultural heritage.
Music is a cornerstone of Victoria’s identity as the ‘creative state’. This is something we are known for around the world and it is a huge economic driver.
Melbourne has more music venues per capita than any other city in the world. The 700 music venues across Victoria host approximately 100,000 gigs a year, with an estimated economic impact of $1.42 billion generated from live music, clubs and festivals. Melbourne’s music venues have an audience of 112,000 every Saturday night, more than an AFL Grand Final.
Music venues are the critical infrastructure of the live music industry and they cannot survive without intervention from the Victorian Government. At exactly the time when more local stages are needed to support Australian artists, we will lose them. If we lose these venues, we will lose opportunities for artists and Melbourne’s iconic music scene.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to work with Music Victoria to develop a package of needs-based financial assistance to protect small to mid-size enterprise music venues until they are able to trade sustainably, put in place a clear and balanced roadmap to reopen at full capacity and provide a fund to support the relaunching of the industry when COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.
By Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (2173 signatures).
Laid on table.
Ms PATTEN: I move:
That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
COVID-19
Legislative Council Electronic Petition
The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council that the impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns on the hospitality industry, their staff, suppliers, and customers.
Data shows that restaurants, pubs and bars have not been the source of COVID-19 infections and that the hospitality industry has previously put in place appropriate measures to manage any outbreak with social distancing, crowd limits and by recording customer details.
The hospitality sector should be free to re-open with appropriate measures in place, which would allow them to re-employ some of the 68,000 people who have lost their jobs, and to serve their local communities.
The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to allow the hospitality sector to reopen safely with previous Stage Two restrictions being the maximum imposed.
By Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (6 signatures).
Laid on table.
Papers
Victims of crime
Community petition
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:12): I move, by leave:
That there be laid before this house a copy of the petition to introduce stringent laws for victims of stalking and violence.
Motion agreed to.
Committees
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
Alert Digest No. 13
Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (12:13): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No. 13 of 2020 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, including appendices and extracts of proceedings. I move:
That the report be published.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GEPP: I move:
That the Council take note of the report.
If I might just briefly address the report, it is more to say thank you for the outstanding work of the staff that supported the committee in a very, very difficult year that everybody has experienced. Of course the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is required to meet every parliamentary sitting week if not at other times as well, as it so determines. So there is always a body of work for the SARC to review, and this year has been no different. For the majority of the year we have been meeting, like everybody else, online and in a Teams-based environment, and that of course in and of itself brings its own challenges. But I did want to rise today and particularly thank the executive officer, Helen Mason, who has provided some extraordinary leadership this year throughout the course of a very difficult year, and research officer Lauren Cook, who guides the SARC through the regulations review subcommittee and brings to our attention all of the matters with the creation and the making of regulations following the passage of legislation.
Our business support officer, Simon Dinsbergs, and administrative officers, Sonya Caruana and Ebony Cousins, have also done a fantastic job. Can I also thank our deputy chair, the member for Hastings from the other place, Mr Burgess, and other members of the committee: Ms Kilkenny from the other place; Ms Connolly from the other place; and from this chamber, Ms Terpstra, Ms Patten and Mrs McArthur. Can I also extend my thanks to former member of our committee Ms Taylor for her work as well. Thank you. I commend the report.
Motion agreed to.
Papers
Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants
Final Report
The Clerk: Pursuant to section 37(3)(c) of the Inquiries Act 2004, I lay on the table a copy of the report of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants.
Ombudsman
Report 2020
The Clerk: Pursuant to section 25AA(4)(c) of the Ombudsman Act 1973, I lay on the table a copy of the Ombudsman’s annual report 2019–20, including the annual plan 2020–21.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): I move, by leave:
That the Ombudsman’s report be taken into account on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
Papers
Tabled by Clerk:
Adult, Community and Further Education Board—Report, 2019–20.
Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984—Notices pursuant to section 32(4) in relation to Statutory Rule Nos. 96 and 105 (Gazette No. G43, 29 October 2020).
Liquor Control Reform Act 1998—Report, 2019–20 by the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police, under section 148R of the Act.
Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes—
Ballarat Planning Scheme—Amendment C222.
Colac Otway Planning Scheme—Amendment C97.
Darebin Planning Scheme—Amendment C195.
East Gippsland Planning Scheme—Amendment C160.
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme—Amendment C222.
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme—Amendments C396 and C413.
Latrobe Planning Scheme—Amendment C125.
Manningham Planning Scheme—Amendment C132.
Melbourne Planning Scheme—Amendment C370.
Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme—Amendment C277.
Port Phillip Planning Scheme—Amendment C171.
Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendments VC180, VC187 and VC190.
Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament—
Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020—No. 133.
Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—No. 132.
Supreme Court Act 1986—Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria)—No. 131.
Water Act 1989—No. 130.
Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—
Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 131 and 132.
Legislative instruments and related documents under section 16B in respect of—
Orders in Council of 15 October 2020 to vary five existing designated area orders under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.
Specification of 30 November 2020 of Vehicle Fees and Charges for Overdimensional Vehicles Crossing Tracks under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983.
Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001—Notice of request to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council for advice on aspects of public land use information, under section 26C of the Act.
Proclamations of the Governor in Council fixing operative dates in respect of the following acts:
Cladding Safety Victoria Act 2020—Whole Act (other than Sections 57A, 57B, 57C, 57D, 57E, 57F and 58A)—1 December 2020—Remaining Provisions of the Act—1 February 2021 (Gazette No. S624, 1 December 2020).
Police and Emergency Legislation Amendment Act 2020—Whole Act (other than Sections 3 and 4 and Parts 4 and 5)—2 December 2020 (Gazette No. S624, 1 December 2020).
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Notices given.
Notices of intention to make statements
Notices given.
General business
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:28): I move, by leave:
That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 9 December 2020:
(1) order of the day 50, resumption of debate on the motion relating to taxi compensation;
(2) notice of motion 436 standing in the name of Mr Davis revoking Moorabool planning scheme amendment C95;
(3) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis on Australia’s dispute with the Chinese Communist Party over its use of fake images;
(4) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Limbrick on vaping; and
(5) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Quilty on the right to protest.
Motion agreed to.
Members statements
Minister for Health
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:29): A member of my staff has been subject to a very distressing situation due to a lack of action by the Minister for Health. A constituent who was admitted to a public hospital to have the tip of his right toe removed due to infection contacted us to advise that due to post-operative complications, which he asserts were the fault of the public health system, he has been transferred to Melbourne and had half of his leg amputated. He was then being told he was to be transferred back to the care of the original hospital and was most unhappy as he holds them responsible for the loss of his leg.
On Monday, 24 November, I emailed the Minister for Health to request urgent intervention to allow the patient to remain in the Melbourne hospital. No response was received, so on 1 December my office phoned the minister’s office. After being on hold for some time they left a message requesting a call back on this urgent issue. No return call was received. Later that day the constituent called my office so distraught that he was threatening suicide. My staff member again emailed the minister, pointing out the constituent’s deteriorating mental state, and received a brush-off reply stating the issue had been referred to the department.
She also notified parliamentary security services of the incident, and fortunately they intervened, contacting the constituent, hospital management and the minister’s office. Once Parliament security intervened, things started to happen, and only because of their involvement did the minister take the urgent action that was originally requested. I extend my sincere gratitude to the Parliament’s security for their valuable assistance. On the contrary, the minister’s lack of action was totally unacceptable and caused significant— (Time expired)
Sarah Ngo and Nuria Yu
Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:31): This is the 30th anniversary of the Victorian parliamentary internship program. Established in 1990, our flagship program is the longest continuously running program in Australia. It has produced many wideranging and high-quality reports from 1252 internships hosted by 297 members of Parliament. The parliamentary internship program is two way in nature. It not only provides students with a fantastic opportunity to immerse themselves in government decision-making but it also grants the Parliament a great insight into issues across Victoria. Interns have gone on to bigger and greater things in both politics and government.
From the start of my term in this Parliament I have hosted interns every single semester. This year I had the privilege to host two more students. Sarah Ngo from La Trobe University published a report on the role of multicultural communities in my seat of South Eastern Metropolitan Region. Nuria Yu of the University of Melbourne produced a report on ways to improve outcomes for youth unemployment in CALD communities. For Sarah and Nuria, I was pleased to hear that both of their reports received special mentions for their quality. My congratulations to all the interns for their hard work and extra efforts, particularly in the very difficult and challenging environment of the year 2020.
Luke Chilcott
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:33): I congratulate Luke Chilcott from Wangaratta on receiving a gold medal for bravery from the Royal Humane Society of Australasia, presented by the Victorian Governor. On 25 April 2017 Luke and his family gave refuge to his neighbour Ora Holt and her four children in a horrific incident of family violence in which Ora was murdered by her husband before he turned the gun on himself. After Luke barricaded their front door, Ora’s husband, armed with a high-calibre rifle, smashed his way through the Chilcott’s front window in front of their young son, while Ora and her children hid in a backroom. Luke put himself between the gunman and hallway, which gave Ora time to usher her children out of a back door to safety, along with Luke’s wife and their children. I am fortunate to have met with Luke and his wife to discuss reforms to the justice system and support for victims of crime. It still saddens me that Luke and his family were, as I see it, not classified appropriately under victims of crime support, and this has had significant financial implications for them as they rebuild their lives. There is no doubt that Luke Chilcott is a true hero.
Morwell GovHub
Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (12:34): I rise today to congratulate the artists who have been behind the creation of some incredible Indigenous art to go into the new GovHub in Morwell. Thanks to a project and collaboration with the Torch, which is a partner with Fulham Correctional Centre alongside GROW Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley Authority, there has also been an incredible installation of art through boardroom tables, which has increased the presence of Indigenous culture in Morwell and as part of government operations. The two people who did the carving work on the table were named Geoff and Joel, and the table was provided by artists from Tarwin Lower. I would also like to acknowledge the Fulham Correctional Centre general manager, Natalie Greenfield. The collaboration was supported and facilitated by Kangan TAFE through the Torch project, and the Koori liaison officer, Chris, also did a power of good work.
Australian Services Union
Ms SHING: On another matter, it is 10 years since the equal remuneration campaign was achieved by social and community services sector representatives the Australian Services Union. After the Industrial Relations Commission acknowledged the discrepancies of between 25 and 45 per cent for women working in the social and community services sector, we have now seen the final remuneration order come into effect. Well done to everyone at the ASU for achieving this significant outcome.
COVID-19
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:36): For 39 consecutive days now Victoria has not acquired a single new coronavirus case, yet still restrictions remain on businesses, community groups and individuals’ lives. The Premier must realise that the pandemic is not a justification for government to intervene and control every aspect of our lives in perpetuity. With an absence of substantial risk, the government has no right to dictate to businesses at what staff capacity they should operate or dictate how many people families can have over for Christmas lunch or how many patrons a pub can serve. The government claims they want the economy to be revitalised, but these rules are still in place. Clearly their real intentions are different. The government should immediately repeal the health directives and cede control over Victorians’ lives and let us get back to normal, not COVID normal of any form.
Daryl Swayn
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:37): I rise today to speak about the passing of one great man, Daryl Swayn, who passed away on 17 November after a long battle with cancer. He was aged 67 and a very loving husband to Lynn and father to Andrew and Kate. He would have celebrated and turned 68 five days ago on his birthday on 3 December. In his younger years he was a talented music man and in his later years a valued member of Anaconda in Belmont. I knew Daryl through his work at Anaconda when my wife worked there previously also. He became a good friend and also a proud supporter of me and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. He thought so much of the party and what we stand for that he volunteered and stood on polling booths during the last election. I would often bump into Daryl at the Grovedale Hotel of all places, and like me he enjoyed a beer. He also loved his music. In fact it was just this morning that I stumbled across an old Facebook post of his showing a jam session with the talented John Fogerty, and Billy Gibbons from ZZ Top. The session features songs like Bad Moon Rising, Fortunate Son, La Grange and Sharp Dressed Man—all classics, just like Daryl himself. Before his passing he posted his thanks and appreciation to those that took care of him throughout his battle: Barwon Health, Geelong Hospital, the Andrew Love Cancer Clinic and of course his dear wife, Lynn. Rest in peace, Dasla.
Sri Lankan community
Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:39): I had the pleasure of participating in the virtual Ceylon tea evening organised by the Consul General of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Mr Kapila Fonseka. I would like to thank the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Sri Lanka for extending this invitation to me. The event highlighted the health benefits of drinking Ceylon tea, its varieties and origin and provided a few tips on how to prepare a cup of tea. I was happy to receive the tea hamper from the Consul General as I am a tea lover. Approximately 49 per cent of Australia’s Sri Lankan-born population call Melbourne home. The Sri Lankan community in Australia is very active and has made significant positive contributions to Victorian and Australian culture. For many years I have been pleased to consider many Sri Lankans in Melbourne my very good friends.
Felicitations
Ms VAGHELA: On another note, as the year comes to an end, I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all staff in the Victorian Parliament. This year has been a very tough year, but we have still managed to stay positive and get through it. Thank you to all the staff at the table office and Hansard and also thank you to our clerks, catering staff, security staff, my electorate office staff, my colleagues and our cleaners for keeping things moving amongst this pandemic. I would also like to thank all the residents of the Western Metropolitan Region for making the contributions and sacrifices to get Victoria to where we are today. Australia is the envy of the world today, and it is due to the significant contributions and difficult sacrifices of each Victorian. I take this opportunity to wish everyone a safe festive season and a happy new year.
Anti-corruption agency funding
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:40): My members statement condemns the Andrews Labor government taking an axe to the budgets of Victoria’s vitally important integrity and corruption-busting agencies, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Victorian Ombudsman, that are tasked with holding the government accountable. Victorians should be very suspicious about the motives of Daniel Andrews in his attempts to cripple the budgets of IBAC and the VO at a time when they are both undertaking investigations into the government and the Victorian Labor Party. The Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, and the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich, have recently both been pleading with the Andrews government for additional funding to ensure that their investigatory capacity and resources are sufficient to properly investigate the matters currently before them and into the future. In response, Daniel Andrews has not listened and indeed has cut—slashed—their budgets.
The Ombudsman, in response to what she said amounted to a state budget allocation of about $2 million short of the $21 million spent last year, including having to run a $5 million deficit, went to the extraordinary length of publicly raising her concerns in a recent ABC radio interview and also with Neil Mitchell. She said on ABC she was very disappointed that she was in a position where she was required to publicly advocate for funding and the appearance of it is really poor and does absolutely risk looking like an attempt to undermine her. IBAC has had its funding cut by $4.4 million. It is simply disgraceful that Daniel Andrews is cutting the bodies that we rely upon to root out corruption in Victoria.
Felicitations
Mr O’DONOHUE: I take this opportunity to wish all members a happy Christmas and thank my family and my staff for another great year.
Youth mental health
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:42): I rise to speak about the mental health of our youth. It is at an alarming level. One in 13 Australian teenagers is taking antidepressants and other prescription drugs for mental illness. One in 25 primary school children have a prescription for anxiety or an anti-depression medication. A Productivity Commission report has revealed that one in seven school-aged children have been diagnosed with a mental illness and suicide is the leading cause of death for young Australians aged between 15 and 24.
The mental health crisis has been made worse by the harsh Victorian lockdown during the pandemic. It is reflected in bullying and truancy in schools. Primary school children are starting to self-harm at an alarming rate. Over 100 days of lockdown have created high levels of family breakdowns and uncertainty over employment. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data reveals that 2312 toddlers and preschool children were prescribed medication for mental health issues in 2018–19. It shows that almost 90 000 primary school age children and almost 135 000 teenagers were prescribed medication, mostly for anxiety and depression but also for attention deficit disorder, psychosis and conduct disorder.
Gippsland award recipients
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:43): In my members statement today I want to highlight some Gippsland legends. I want to congratulate Bec Nancarrow from the Traralgon Girl Guides who had bestowed upon her a Boronia award. This recognises her commitment to guiding, her commitment to being a fantastic junior leader, and her commitment to being treasurer and local district manager. Also I would like to congratulate in particular Mark Tregellas from the Mallacoota RSL sub-branch. He recognised at the end of the fires at the start of this year that there needed to be a platform to share information and coordinate. He created the Mallacoota Recovers platform which has subsequently gone on to be adopted by 20 communities in five states. For this great initiative, Trigger was recognised, and the sub-branch were recognised, for the Resilient Australia award 2020, and I congratulate him particularly. I also want to congratulate Heather Baird from A Better Life For Foster Kids for being recognised in the Victorian Regional Achievement and Community awards. A Better Life For Foster Kids, Heather and the team have won the GOTAFE community group award. She does an amazing job with her team to support the betterment of children living in out-of-home care. They do a wonderful job, and I congratulate all these Gippsland legends.
Proposed new state
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:45): I am pleased to announce that plans for a regional exit, or Rexit, have begun. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) has released a report about the key demographic, economic and social statistics of Australia’s newest proposed state, encompassing areas of regional New South Wales and Victoria. The name of the new state is yet to be decided. My suggestion is Murray or Murray Darling, but we do know the opportunity for Rexit presents the greatest potential shot in the arm for regional Australia since Federation. Indeed it may be part of a greater movement around Australia for a second federation, redrawing the borders of all the states.
The report tells us that the new state would have around 1.3 million people, of which 800 000 currently reside in Victoria and 540 000 in New South Wales. It would have a larger population than the combined population of Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. The new state would reduce the population of Victoria by just 12 per cent and New South Wales by 7 per cent. All of these people could finally have a parliament with a majority of representatives who advocate for their interests and could expect to see the region transformed into a powerhouse of primary industry and tourism.
I would like to thank the PBO for their excellent work and look forward to updating you on two further reports regarding taxation and spending. My vision is of a low-tax, low-regulation state where the economy can thrive free of the heavy weight of Melbourne and people can be free to choose their own destiny. From a tin-shed parliament on the banks of the Murray we will chart a new course for the people of the regions.
Trams
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:46): Today I want to draw the house’s attention to the extraordinary order put in by the Andrews Labor government for new trams—$3 million spent on new trams, an order that has now been cancelled. You have got to ask what on earth the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and the Minister for Public Transport are up to here. They put in the order, they now cancel the order. The work has been done by the various construction groups, Bombardier and their suppliers. They have ordered things, they have got staff in place and then zap the order is gone.
There are jobs lost here—jobs lost at the time when the unemployment from COVID is high. They say they are going to bring in new trams later. That is years away. The new trams are not even designed, so it will be a long time before those jobs come. At the same time we have had them cancel these trams because the electricity supply needs to be upgraded. Everyone knew that. Every version of this tram that has gone out has had that, so when they put the order in they should have known. I mean, this is a bizarre thing. You have actually got a tram order that is paying for the non-provision of trams now. It is a bit like in Yes Minister and that hospital in the Midlands that worked very well when it did not have patients. This is a Sir Humphrey outing where they are now paying for trams that are not delivered. Three million dollars, no trams—a bad outcome for Victorians.
Hampton heritage protection
Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:48): I have been contacted by residents of Service Street, Hampton, who are trying desperately to save four homes from demolition, all built prior to 1920 and identified in three separate studies as having cultural and heritage significance. The Minister for Planning initially rejected an interim heritage overlay on the basis that there was no application to demolish and that a VCAT hearing was pending. However, since the minister’s decision, circumstances have changed. During the VCAT hearing last week, after Bayside council and 27 objectors had completed their submissions, the developer introduced amended plans. Frankly I doubt whether VCAT rules should allow this sort of thing, but as a result the hearing was adjourned until 4 February next year. But on 30 November the developer applied for permits to demolish all four homes. This shows utter contempt by the developer for local residents, VCAT, Bayside council and probably the planning minister as well. Given that the homes now face immediate demolition, I urge the minister to put aside the understandable frustration he has with Bayside council over heritage protection and to ensure these buildings are not demolished. The original application for heritage protection was supported by 1459 signatures from local residents. I urge the minister to support these residents.
Felicitations
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:49): As we near the end of the year I want to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to a number of people who have helped us get through this extraordinary time. Firstly, to the staff at Parliament, thank you. To the clerks, attendants, dining-room staff, security, cleaning and committee staff, not to mention all the other teams at the Department of Parliamentary Services, our daily interactions with each of you, the quality of your work and the warmth and friendliness you share makes it a pleasure to be here even on those long, hard days. Thank you especially for finding me a place to lie down when I needed to while pregnant and unwell and your extraordinary kindness at every turn.
To my staff and Greens colleagues, well done on all you have achieved in such a challenging year. A pandemic has been no barrier to the work you all do trying to serve our community and make the world a better place each and every day. On a personal note, thank you especially for the care you showed me that allowed me to continue working at some very challenging moments during my pregnancy. Xanthe, Steph, Mary, Matt, Georgia, Alex, Ajit, Rose, Josie, Judy and Clare, I could not have got through this year without you all. When I became very sick you made sure I did not skip a beat and kept our office going, and you did the same while I was on maternity leave. You have all gone above and beyond in your work, especially you, Clare. Thank you for your extraordinary support.
As we move towards the holiday season I send my best wishes to all Victorians for a safe and festive season. After all we have been through this year I know we will all cherish what really matters even more: our health and the wellbeing of each other and of our world.
Business of the house
Notices of motion
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (12:51): I move:
That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 447, be postponed until later this day.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms TIERNEY:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:51): I rise to make some remarks on what is a very unusual State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020. As members of the house would be aware, it is the usual practice following a budget for a state taxation acts amendment bill to be introduced to give effect to the taxation measures which are contained in that budget. As we have seen over the last six years of this government, those amendments by way of state taxation acts amendment bills have typically been to increase tax revenue. It has typically been done in a number of ways, quite often through technical amendments, quite often through significant taxation impositions. I think to date we have seen 30 increased or extended tax measures over the life of this government. However, the state taxation acts amendment bill we are dealing with today is a bit different to the usual amendment bills insofar as many of the revenue initiatives which have been announced in last sitting week’s budget are in fact not dealt with by this bill.
Earlier this year the Parliament made a number of statutory changes in response to the COVID situation, one of which was in an omnibus bill, to provide authority to the Treasurer to provide a range of exemptions and relief from the state taxation framework by way of gazettal. So we see, while a number of taxation measures and COVID-related relief measures were announced or formalised in the budget two weeks ago, many of those measures have in fact been implemented by way of the Treasurer’s discretionary powers given to him by the COVID amendment legislation earlier this year rather than through the framework of the taxation acts amendment bill, as would normally be the case with budget announcements.
So rather than being a bill specifically to implement budget initiatives, this bill is more of an omnibus bill looking to make a number of technical tidy-ups to taxation legislation. This is not uncommon for taxation legislation in this state; we see on an annual basis a range of technical amendments made. Ostensibly the government will come in and say the intent is to have zero impact on revenue because they are, in the words of the government, merely clarifying existing provisions and therefore no revenue change has been booked. Thus it is with a number of the amendments which are sought by way of this bill this afternoon.
The government has provided a list, and I do not intend to run through them all—there is a list A to Q—of what are essentially technical amendments to the taxation framework correcting some unintended consequences of earlier taxation amendments, particularly in relation to some of the corporate reconstruction provisions. There are some substantive provisions in this bill which give effect to announcements made by the government. One is bringing forward the 50 per cent discount in stamp duty for certain regional property purchases of commercial and industrial land, which will be brought forward to 1 January next year. That is being enacted through this bill rather than through the Treasurer’s discretionary provisions, as is the provision of land tax exemption to certain social, cultural, recreational, literary and educational clubs in respect of land tax from 2021.
A third major provision of the bill is to implement an increase in landfill levies, which was announced by the government I think in February of this year but is only being enacted now through this State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill. That is one provision of this bill that the coalition will oppose. We indicated at the time the minister announced that increase in landfill levies—the bin tax, if you like—that we did not support that impost, we did not support the fact that that impost will flow through to Victorian households, and given it is now being done in the strained economic environment we are currently in, we will not support that provision of the bill.
The budget papers note that the landfill levy is forecast to generate $630.9 million over the final three years of the forward estimates. No revenue is actually booked for the 2020–21 financial year, but the government is then forecasting revenue of $161 million in 2021–22, increasing to $238 million and then $231 million in the 2023–24 year, the last year of the forward estimates. So $630 million is expected to be raised through increased landfill levies. That of course will have a direct impact on households. The cost of those increased levies will flow back through waste contractors, back through local councils and impact household budgets, and now is not the time to be hitting Victorian households with $630 million in additional waste levies. So when the bill comes to committee we will have an amendment seeking to omit a number of clauses. There are about eight operative clauses that relate to the landfill levy, and we will be seeking to omit those clauses. I ask that the amendments be circulated if they are available.
Opposition suggested amendments circulated by Mr RICH-PHILLIPS pursuant to standing orders.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The other amendment we will be seeking to make to this bill relates to one of the technical amendments that the government is seeking to insert in the bill by way of clauses 45, 46 and 55 of the bill with respect to the way in which the principal place of residence exemption for land tax applies to properties where there are two occupied dwellings on one site and where rent may be incurred, or received, in respect of the second dwelling on the particular site.
Now, it is currently the case under the land tax provisions that where there is a principal place of residence that is exempt by virtue of being a principal place of residence and there is a second dwelling—a granny flat, for example—on the property and a lease is in place in respect of that granny flat, then the principal place of residence exemption from land tax does not apply in respect of that granny flat.
What the government is seeking to do now with the provisions in this bill is extend the removal of that exemption in respect of those properties—those granny flats, if you like—where rent is being received even if there is not a lease in place. There is the potential for this to have an impact on families who do have a relative living in a granny flat, a person who is making a contribution to the family. One of the issues with this provision is it refers to rent. What is rent versus expenses? How is that going to be determined? And the practical reality is that it is going to be very difficult to determine. So what I predict we will have with this situation of the government seeking to narrow the exemption from leased granny flats to rented granny flats is that most people who will fall under this category will continue to operate without paying, without being subject to land tax in respect of their granny flat, but a few people will unknowingly fall foul of this provision.
So it is not going to raise any revenue. It is not intended to raise any revenue insofar as the government has not allocated a revenue line against it. It falls into the category—which, as I said, we get on an annual basis—of the government wanting to make clarifications, in some cases to fix unintended consequences but predominantly to clarify what they see as the existing law. But all that will happen is it will end up tripping up a small number of people who are unsuspecting in this situation while it will not have any material revenue impact for the government. So we do not support the granny tax. We do not support a tax on granny flats. We do not support the government narrowing the existing exemption, which will simply lead to confusion in families as to whether granny living in the backyard and contributing to household bills because she lives there or paying some rent because she lives there suddenly makes that part of the property not exempt from land tax.
The only people that will win out of this provision, frankly, are taxation advisers. As we make our taxation statutes more and more complex, as the government seeks to, in its words, clarify things while at the same time claiming not to collect any additional revenue, the only winners are the taxation advisers. The absentee land tax is another example of that, where vacant properties supposedly were to be subject to land tax in certain circumstances. Obviously that requires self-declaration on the part of the taxpayer, and in reality it has raised and would raise very little for the government while just creating an increasingly more complex taxation framework from which the only beneficiaries are taxation advisers.
We do not support this provision, which I think the Shadow Treasurer in the other place has termed the ‘granny flat tax’. When the bill comes to committee we will be seeking to omit those parts of clauses 45 and 46 and clause 55 which give effect to narrowing the exemption for land tax from the current leased property to rented property.
The other point I would make on this taxation amendment bill is, as I said at the outset, usually when a government brings down a budget the accompanying state taxation acts amendment bill has the taxation provisions in it. For the reason I outlined earlier—the fact that the Treasurer has broad discretion now by virtue of the COVID framework to gazette exemptions, and he has done that and they are listed in the budget papers—they are not covered. But one taxation revenue measure is also not covered in this bill, and that is the government’s decision to introduce what it has described as a distance-based charge for zero- and low-emission vehicles.
Now, the budget papers attribute some $27.8 million to that revenue measure, including, curiously, a negative revenue figure of $1.9 million in 2021, but what we are not seeing in this bill is actually the legislative framework for that, which raises a lot of questions about how the government is proposing to practically implement its distance-based charge for zero- and low-emission vehicles. The budget papers have indicated the government will seek from the middle of next year to apply a 2.5-cent-per-kilometre charge on those vehicles. What we have not seen from the government is how it is practically going to do that.
I think it is very telling that we have a bill before the house which normally would cover all the taxation measures—new taxes—being introduced by a government in its budget, yet this one is omitted. So we are going to be asked later today or later this week to in fact support an appropriation bill, support a set of budget papers, which relies on this $28 million in revenue being delivered without actually having the supporting legislative framework to put that in place. Which is a further, frankly, breakdown in the processes of government—to have a budget bill with the appropriated spending, to have budget papers which rely on the revenue, but not to have the legislative framework that will actually give effect to that charging regime, which, as we know, is a very unusual charging regime. It is not something that has been implemented in Victoria previously. The impact it is going to have on consumers—users of electric vehicles—is going to be I think a significant topic for community discussion, and I think it is very unfortunate that we are in a situation of needing to vote on a budget bill, an appropriation bill, that relies on revenue without having any indication from the government as to how it is actually going to implement that revenue framework, given it has omitted it from this State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020.
The coalition is not going to oppose this bill, because it does provide the stamp duty relief I outlined earlier as well as the other exemptions in addition to those which have already been made by the Treasurer by way of his gazettal powers. We will, however, when the bill gets to committee, oppose the provision that relates to the introduction of a $630 million bin tax, and we will also oppose the provision which extends or removes the land tax exemption from granny flats. We do not believe it is an appropriate step; it adds more complexity than it will generate revenue for the government and it is an impost that the Victorian community does not need at this time.
Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:09): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020, and I am aware that Mr Rich-Phillips has tabled amendments. Of course the government opposes those amendments in regard to the bill. The general tax measures in this budget are of course in a budget like no other, and the main focus of this budget is on looking after people, looking after families, taking care of the people we love the most and helping more Victorians get back into work. As we have all been aware, this has been a tough year. It has been a year like no other, and of course this budget is about matching the resilience and sacrifice of Victorians with a plan to rebuild the economy. That plan is ambitious, and we do not shy away or resile from that. It needs to be ambitious because we have found ourselves in unprecedented and uncharted waters with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, at the heart of our economic recovery there must be a job creation plan. It is why this budget delivers a targeted set of initiatives that form the jobs plan. The jobs plan includes an ambitious target to create 400 000 new jobs by 2025 and 200 000 of those jobs by 2022. Our jobs plan is dedicated to getting more Victorians back to work while at the same time building an economy that is fairer and more inclusive for everyone. I have talked in this chamber before—I think it was the last sitting week—about how sometimes our economy creates winners and losers. Well, this budget ensures that everyone can prosper.
In order to help businesses and households get through to the other side of this pandemic the government has already made unprecedented emergency changes to taxes, fees and charges. The government has provided almost $4.1 million in tax and charge relief and tax deferrals. We have provided $1 billion in payroll tax refunds and waivers for small and medium businesses with payrolls of up to $3 million in 2019–20. Businesses with payrolls of up to $10 million can defer their 2020–21 payroll tax for up to 12 months, providing a $1.7 billion cash flow boost. We have provided land tax relief, waived vacant residential land tax for vacancies this year, provided a 25 per cent waiver of the congestion levy, frozen a range of fees and charges, and much, much more. This budget invests a further $1.5 billion in tax relief.
Revenue measures in the budget and in this bill are an important part of the jobs plan. This bill also includes other amendments to the Victorian taxation revenue and valuation laws to improve the overall operation. The new jobs tax credit plan is a budget measure but not in this bill. In an Australian first, we are providing $836 million in tax credits to encourage small and medium businesses to increase employment by rehiring staff, restoring staff hours or supporting new jobs as they recover from the effects of this pandemic. Not only will eligible businesses pay no payroll tax on these increased wages; they will get a refund of tax already paid. The more they increase wages and employment in Victoria, the less payroll tax they will pay. This measure will be delivered using the emergency tax relief powers provided by Parliament in April 2020 and will complement the revenue measures in this bill. Now, as I mentioned earlier, our jobs plan will bring forward a 50 per cent concession on commercial and industrial property. This is just one of the measures that we are talking about in stimulating the economy and developing our jobs plan.
One of the key principles in our jobs plan is to support every part of our state. In addition to vital spending programs like the $465 million Victorian tourism recovery package, we are also using the tax system to ensure no region or community is left behind. This tax bill brings forward the full 50 per cent stamp duty concession for commercial and industrial property transactions in regional Victoria to contracts entered into from 1 January 2021—more than two years earlier than announced in the 2019–20 budget. This will save businesses a further $39.7 million in addition to the relief in last year’s budget. It also supports the Andrews Labor government’s policy to support regional Victoria by cutting the regional payroll tax rate. In a national first we slashed the regional payroll tax rate to half the metropolitan rate, and we are halving it again down to 25 per cent of the metropolitan rate, which is 1.12125 per cent.
This bill will also provide a land tax exemption for certain not-for-profit clubs as announced in the 2020–21 budget. Not-for-profit clubs that provide members social, cultural, recreational, literary or educational interests are currently eligible for a concession that caps the applicable land tax rate at 0.357 per cent. This bill replaces that concession with an exemption for eligible clubs, similar to the exemption available for sporting and outdoor recreation clubs. This will save eligible clubs an estimated $6.4 million over the budget and forward estimates period. No club will pay more tax as a result of this change.
This bill also amends the Environment Protection Act 1970 in regard to the landfill levy. The Environment Protection Act 1970 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 will be amended to enable the implementation of the Recycling Victoria policy released by this government before the pandemic took hold. This bill provides the necessary financial mechanism to encourage everyone to reduce, re-use and recycle. That mechanism is an amendment to the schedule of the metropolitan municipal and industrial landfill levy and the landfill levies for hazardous waste classified as category C and D waste to $105.90 per tonne on 1 July 2021 and $125.90 per tonne on 1 July 2022. Proportionate increases to the rural municipal and industrial landfill levy rates are also delivered. As part of the economic response to the coronavirus pandemic, the scheduled increase in the rates on 1 July 2020 was forgone and the first increase will now take place on 1 July next year. This amendment to the planned trajectory balances the need to gradually lift the rates to provide the long-term investment certainty that will create jobs in the recovery with the pressing need to respond to the pandemic earlier this year.
The cost to send waste to landfill in Victoria is currently amongst the lowest in Australia. It is less than half of that of our neighbours in South Australia and New South Wales. There is no question that we need to align our rates with our neighbours to avoid becoming a dumping ground, just as happened in Queensland under Campbell Newman and the Liberal government, as it then was. This increase is also critical to securing the private sector investment in the waste and recycling industry that we need, and it will create jobs in the recovery process as well. Without this increase investors will look outside of Victoria and we will lose out to our neighbours with higher levies.
These reforms are estimated to increase municipal and industrial landfill levy revenue by approximately $533 million and prescribed industrial waste landfill levies revenue by approximately $98 million over the forward estimates period. Over time the revenue raised from this levy will fall by design as waste is diverted from landfill and materials are put to better use. This financial mechanism and the Recycling Victoria policy was welcomed across the waste sector as well as by the Municipal Association of Victoria. The revenue raised by this reform will be used to fund the Victorian government’s 10-year circular economy policy and action plan, Recycling Victoria, including a nation-leading container deposit scheme. The increase in the levy is one part of an interdependent suite of policies that provide the necessary incentives for Victorians to increase resource recovery and reduce the amount of waste to landfill, and they encourage investment in new recycling technologies.
Many colleagues in this chamber, including me, were members who sat on the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into recycling, and I know that the things that I have just talked about, being the container deposit scheme and our circular economy policy, are all things that are welcomed by not only people in my electorate, the Eastern Metropolitan Region, but also the broader community. Many, many Victorians are invested strongly in seeing government policies and governments—really all levels of government, including state government—being able to influence how we recycle. Whether it is local councils at the local level and what they can do in terms of managing their waste and how they could improve their kerbside collection regimes, or even up to a national level when we look at packaging of product that is imported into this country, every level of government can play a role in how we reduce and re-use our materials. Of course we need to ensure that all of these policies are supported by appropriately collected revenue. And it has not been lost on me, I have to say, just after the budget announcements that were made in recent weeks, that this government, as I mentioned earlier, really does put Victorians at the heart of this budget. We want to make sure that we look after families and take care of people.
On our investment in schools, for example, I might just comment on the funding of the Heatherwood School plan to rebuild and redevelop that school. Heatherwood is a special school in Donvale, but also in my own electorate of Eastern Metropolitan Region Ainslie Parklands Primary School has recently received $251 000 for a remodelling of their playground—again, delivered by the Andrews Labor government.
Of course if you want to have investment in people, if you want to have investment in schools, if you want to ensure that you properly fund environmental policies such as the container deposit scheme and our recycling and circular economy policy, you need to have a strong taxation plan that supports those things. Those opposite cannot then criticise us for appropriately funding these policies by virtue of collecting state taxes and then also seek to claim that they have contributed to this or had these wins by advocating for them in their communities, when clearly they have not been advocating for them. It is this government that understands the needs of those schools and people in our own communities, because it is the government MPs on the government benches who have been the ones who have been advocating to the ministers in those relevant portfolios as to why those schools need to be funded to have improvements to cater for additional enrolments.
I see that Minister Leane is here as well, and he will also attest to the fact that many public schools in our region have seen burgeoning enrolments. It is a ring of confidence, I might say, that many, many people in the Eastern Metropolitan Region are sending their children back to public schools because they see the record levels of investment in our public schools by this government. This is critically important for anyone who might be watching along at home on the live stream to know—that it is the government MPs on the government benches that have been advocating for those schools, not those opposite, although many opposite and in the other place like to claim credit for things they have had nothing to do with. It is important that members of our respective communities understand and know that it is the government MPs that have been advocating for those things.
I might just momentarily return to the work on recycling. Although that was a good inquiry and there was a good report into that, as I said, I have had many, many inquiries from people in the Eastern Metropolitan Region asking about the government’s response on the container deposit scheme, and I might say that it has been warmly welcomed. We look forward to seeing the development of the container deposit scheme, the types of containers that will be collected and how they might be worked with. They are all things that will be funded by our budget. I look forward to seeing these measures rolled out over the coming months, but critically important is our jobs plan, which underpins this budget, the taxation measures. As I said, it is about creating 400 000 new jobs by 2025 and 200 000 of those jobs by 2022. These are very serious job creation measures.
I will leave my contribution there. In closing I say that of course the government would encourage all members of this chamber to support this bill but oppose the opposition amendments as foreshadowed by Mr Rich-Phillips.
Sitting suspended 1.24 pm until 2.04 pm.
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (14:04): I rise to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020. In many ways it is not a very exciting bill. It is certainly not the budget, but rather it includes many of the technical changes which make the budget possible. Yet in many ways the bill is actually very revealing of the Premier and how he and his ministers operate. The true measure of this government is not the eye-catching initiatives which the budget details, the lists of sugar-hit, media statement-friendly giveaways generations of Victorians will come to pay for. It is revealed instead in the day-to-day operations, the run-of-the-mill bills like this, how they are introduced and what they contain.
What can we see here? The first thing evident is the lack of respect for Parliament ministers displayed in the hurried introduction of this bill to the Assembly in the last sitting week and the confusion surrounding its timetabling. These are technical amendments once again rushed through without allowing proper time for consultation with accountancy and taxation professionals, the few people who actually understand what they mean. A bill briefing on the morning of a bill’s second-reading debate in Parliament, as occurred in the Assembly in the last sitting week, is simply not good enough. Once again this government has shown that it does not believe that mechanics matter, the nuts and bolts of a parliamentary system which have served our state and much of the democratic world so well for generations.
The next thing this bill reveals is the taxing instinct. When there is money to be extracted the consequences are rarely fully examined, particularly for regional communities. The legislation here amends the Environment Protection Act 1970 to increase metropolitan municipal and industrial landfill levies to $125.90 per tonne by 2022–23, with proportionate increases in the rural municipal and industrial landfill levy rates. This is a huge increase—more than $600 million over the forward estimates period—and it will cause huge financial stress, particularly for rural local councils which cannot so easily redirect existing landfill. At least in this instance it is Parliament amending the Environment Protection Act, not just a change on ministerial whim as the people of Bacchus Marsh discovered to their cost with the government’s watering down of that act’s protections in the interests of ramming through the dumping of toxic soil from the West Gate Tunnel project.
The next tax evident here reveals another instinct. When it senses money, this government simply cannot resist going back to the well and extracting more. The reforms to land tax are yet another instance of this. At every budget the rules are changed in the quest to extract more. This time it seems they seek to make parents and their children liable for land tax if grandparents living in a granny flat on the property are paying any form of rent. It is not just that this is an attack on thousands of families; it is the complexity and therefore potential injustice it introduces.
For tax codes to be fair they must be clear and make the exploitation of ambiguity as hard as possible. This provision does the opposite. Apparently expenses paid by grandparents in the scenario I outlined will not count as rent and therefore will not cause tax to be payable. But where is the distinction between expenses and rent? By their nature arrangements like this are informal ones. It is simply unenforceable. And in cases where it is enforced it will be unfair. Why should some families pay when others are so easily able to avoid the tax through the ambiguity this bill encourages? Furthermore, how will families even know this change has occurred? Will there really be a mass advertising campaign to announce the change? If there is, it will likely outweigh the revenue raised, yet another sound bite policy totally divorced from reality. In its enthusiasm to tax, tax, tax and tax again the government is introducing a new tax which not only reaches into the heart of family life but which creates an ambiguity damaging to enforceability and likely to produce unfairness. I am therefore pleased to support opposition amendments opposing both the landfill levy and this new attempt to modify the land tax principal private residence exemption.
The next tax grab is perhaps the most revealing and demonstrates the government’s tendency to overreach and its carelessness in so doing. The bill increases livestock duty collected from the sale of sheep, goats and their carcasses hugely from 12 cents per head to 35 cents per head. The absolute number may seem low, but that is a tripling of the rate. In their desire to raise even more money from hardworking agricultural producers, did the government stop for a moment to consider whether they were entitled to that money? I do not mean morally; that is a different question. I mean constitutionally. As those who have read this week’s Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee digest closely will know, there is a serious question as to the legality of this clause. Clause 13 substituting section 245 of the existing Duties Act 2000 appears not to address the rather serious implications of section 90 of the commonwealth of Australia constitution. This increase looks a lot like an excise within the meaning of section 90 and, as such, would clearly constitute the increase in a duty, which can be imposed only by the federal Parliament. It would therefore ‘deprive owners of sheep and goats of their property in the duty payable “otherwise than in accordance with law”’. I look forward to the minister’s reply on this one.
In conclusion, then, this dry and technical bill actually reveals much about this government if it is looked into carefully. Once again, its haste and lack of consultation display complacency about the system and arrogance. This is a bill which shows their taxing instincts as well as their desire to overreach and their incompetence, and their desire to say things that sound good rather than making enforceable public policy.
And finally, I wish to observe what the bill fails to include—that is, any real attempt at structural tax reform such as that we now see in New South Wales. I cannot overstress how big a failing that is. There is no attempt to improve the competitiveness of our economy, just more and more layers of expense for individuals and businesses. What we have heard is just tinkering around the sides. To take an example, we have heard from Ms Terpstra about the changes in concessions on stamp duty in regional Victoria. Let us just look at that. Labor members and media releases are frequently cited, but if you look at the figures for forward estimates, they show forgone revenue is $39.7 million over a four-year period. So across the entirety of regional Victoria, this tax reduction will save less than $10 million per year. In a budget which raises $66 billion and spends an awful lot more, that is little more than window dressing. It is a long way from the game-changing opportunities missed to cut payroll tax or to properly investigate local rates, stamp duty and sales taxes. In what it does and in what it fails to do, the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020 is classic Labor.
Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (14:13): I rise to speak in support of the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020. As stated, this bill in itself is not the budget, but it gives effect to the budget measures announced last week. In the last sitting week we heard about this budget and all the positive developments that have come out of it: the funding increases for schools, for health care and for the broader public infrastructure needs of our state. They were all contained in that budget, and I guess as a result there might be changes to taxation as well that are needed to supplement that. The changes are quite technical and can be dry, but nonetheless they are needed.
As a government, we have always been committed, and this budget is about putting people first. As part of the 2020–21 budget we want to look after families and get more Victorians back into work. That is our focus: to create 200 000 new jobs within two years and 400 000 jobs within four years. To make that happen there do need to be some reforms, and this bill, I guess, includes some of the changes that we have made.
It is also important to reflect on some of the initiatives we have taken already, such as the deferment of taxes during the unprecedented emergency that came about as a result of the global COVID pandemic. Almost $4.1 billion of tax charge relief and deferments have already been committed to by this government, and that includes $1 billion in payroll tax refunds and waivers for small and medium businesses with payrolls of up to $3 million in the 2019–20 budget. In addition businesses with payrolls of up to $10 million can defer their 2020–21 payroll tax for up to 12 months, providing a $1.7 billion cash flow boost to our economy. We have also provided land tax relief, waived residential land tax for vacant properties this year, provided a 25 per cent waiver of the congestion levy and frozen a range of fees and charges, among other reforms. The budget invests a further $1.5 billion in tax relief. The bill also includes other amendments to Victoria’s taxation, revenue and valuation laws to improve the overall operation of the system.
I guess one of the bright sparks of this legislation is the 50 per cent tax concession that we are implementing for land transfer duties on purchases of commercial and industrial property in regional Victoria from 1 January 2021. This was a commitment which Labor had made last year and was supposed to be implemented in incremental decreases of 10 per cent, but we have brought that all forward to encourage Victorians to invest in and move their operations to regional Victoria and provide a boost to our regions. I think this is a positive that we should all be proud of in terms of distributing economic activity throughout our state. Sometimes it is very easy to criticise governments for being city centric, but this is definitely not the case. This is a further demonstration of our commitment to the regions. Bringing this forward will allow businesses to recover from the global pandemic and, like I said, to drive further investment in the regions. It will save businesses $39.7 million in addition to the relief provided in last year’s budget. This amendment also supports the Victorian government’s policy to support regional Victoria by cutting the regional payroll tax rate. In a national first the government has slashed the regional payroll tax rate to half the metropolitan rate, and that will be halved again, down to 25 per cent of the metropolitan rate, so it will be encouraging people to employ more people in regional Victoria.
There are also land tax exemptions contained in this bill. It will provide some exemptions for not-for-profit clubs, as announced in the 2020–21 budget. Victorian clubs are currently eligible for a concession rate of land tax on land that they own and solely occupy. The eligibility is met if a club is carried on exclusively to provide for members’ social, cultural, recreational, literary and educational interests or for the promotion or control of horse, pony or harness racing in Victoria and not for the profit or gain of an individual. With the existing concession caps and a land tax rate of 0.357 per cent this concession in practice only provides a concession for landholdings of a reasonably high value, resulting in many clubs receiving little or no benefit. This bill will replace the concession with an exemption for all eligible not-for-profit clubs other than those engaged in promotion or control of horse, pony or harness racing. The current concessional rate will continue to be available to those racing clubs. The new exemption will support the social activities of Victorian clubs and place them on a similar footing to not-for-profit sporting or outdoor recreation and cultural clubs, which currently receive a full exemption from land tax. This will save eligible clubs an estimated $6.4 million over the budget and forward estimates period, and no club will pay more tax as a result of this change.
I guess one of the changes is the increase to the landfill levy. Mr Rich-Phillips spoke about it at length, and it has obviously gotten quite a bit of attention from the state opposition. I think it is important to reflect that our landfill levy compared to our neighbouring states of South Australia and New South Wales is much less then theirs—actually less than half that of South Australia and New South Wales in fact. It is important that we align our rates with neighbours to avoid becoming the dumping ground. This increase is also critical to securing private sector investment in the waste and recycling industry that will create jobs in the recovery. It is important to note that the amendments to the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018 enable the implementation of the Recycling Victoria policy released by the government before the pandemic took hold. This was already in place, and legislation has already been moved and accepted in this place in relation to the implementation of the increase in the landfill levy. All this does is push it back one financial year. That will provide the necessary financial mechanism to encourage everyone to reduce, re-use and recycle. This is an important part of the bill.
It is also worth noting and acknowledging the great work that Minister D’Ambrosio has done in tackling the important issue of recycling in our state with a number of initiatives, and I think this builds upon that. The changes are estimated to increase municipal and industrial landfill levy revenue by approximately $533 million and prescribed industrial waste landfill levies by approximately $98 million over the forward estimates. The increase in the levies is one part of our independent suite of policies that provide the necessary incentives for Victorians to increase resource recovery and reduce the amount of waste to landfill and encourage investment in new recycling technologies.
As I stated at the outset, this is a bill with quite a number of minor and technical amendments that are all needed to support the budget process. Changes made to the first home owner grant and first home buyer duty concession were also mentioned. I think it is important and notable that the bill amends the Duties Act 2000 and the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000 to ensure that the first home owner grant and the first home buyer duty concession work as intended. It confirms that vacant land is eligible for the first home buyer duty exemption or concession where the purchaser or purchasers buy the land in order to build their first home and allows for 36 months after the transfer of vacant land to complete construction of the home and begin occupation. It also amends the first home buyer duty concession and exemption provisions to ensure that a person who receives the first home buyer duty concession as a co-applicant cannot access the first home buyer duty relief a second time. This ensures consistency with the existing rules for the first home owner grant. The bill also amends the definition of a new home for the purposes of the first home owner grant to ensure that it is properly targeted at genuinely new homes, consistent with the policy purpose of promoting new dwelling construction. The amendment closes a loophole where a home can be claimed as new despite having been already lived in potentially for years prior to sale. The change is consistent with how the requirements work in other jurisdictions.
The bill also gives the commission the power to vary the residential requirement for a first home owner grant applicant, which can allow the applicant more time to occupy the property and still qualify for the grant. I think this flexibility is important, because currently it is 14 days—quite strictly—and there might be compelling circumstances where a person for safety or health reasons needs more time, and this gives the commissioner the flexibility to extend that requirement as needed.
We have abolished the special land tax. This is a tax that was introduced in 1973 to discourage land speculators from claiming spurious land tax exemptions while land banking. However, changes to the tax and planning frameworks over the last five decades mean that this tax is no longer fit for purpose or necessary. The tax can also be a disincentive to the efficient use of land and fall inequitably on property owners that are not land banking, such as rooming house operators and not-for-profit sporting associations. Abolishing this inefficient tax will simplify the law, encourage more efficient use of land and improve fairness with only a modest loss of revenue.
There are a number of other changes: expanding the types of equity release providers who can access the duty exemption and updating and refining the principal place of residence exemption that Mrs McArthur touched upon. All these reforms are part of a whole suite of packages that are before us today. The purpose is to support the budget measures, and there are quite a few changes in there. The bill also amends the Land Tax Act 2005 to clarify the inclusion of unpaid interest and penalty tax in the amount of a first charge imposed on land. Unpaid land tax is currently secured by a first ranking statutory charge against the land in order to allow recovery from current and subsequent landowners. Purchasers can protect themselves by obtaining a clearance certificate from the State Revenue Office, which, if obtained, limits the liability to the amount set out on the certificate. This amendment clarifies that interest and penalty tax on unpaid land tax are included in the amount of the charge. It also clarifies that interest and penalty tax on unpaid land tax are recoverable from a mortgagee, lessee or occupier where the owner has defaulted in the payment of land tax.
In conclusion, the bill also makes numerous other amendments. It aligns the Victorian definition of a green car with the commonwealth standard. I think that is important, especially with the broader discussion around electric vehicles and the way they are rolled out in our day-to-day use. It increases the rate of livestock duty on sheep and goats, and it ensures that partnership provisions apply correctly to multiple-layered partnerships amongst others. But I guess this bill is about making sure Victoria is in a position to grow our economy, support businesses to survive and keep Victorian jobs, backed by an effective tax system.
There are so many measures to discuss in this budget that are worth mentioning. Some of the ones that caught my eye were announced during budget week but some prior to that, such as the mental health investment of almost $1 billion. In my electorate of Southern Metropolitan a number of local schools, Beaumaris Secondary and Sandringham Secondary, received significant grants, with funding announcements of $10 million and $19 million. I do not believe the state electorate of Sandringham has ever received that kind of funding in its history. It is even worth mentioning that it is not just in local schools and education but in terms of what I call legacy stuff. The National Gallery of Victoria Contemporary in Southbank will ensure that our state remains the cultural hub of our nation. I think that is crucial for the performing arts sector, which is quite vibrant in the Southern Metropolitan electorate.
Many more projects have been announced over the last few weeks, if you have followed the media releases and followed the legislation, such as the great announcement by the Minister for Public Transport, Minister Carroll, about trams. We are building 100 new trams in this state, and they are going to be serviced in this state as well—over a $1 billion investment in trams, building Victoria for Victorians. This is needed, essential infrastructure in transport. Well done, Minister Carroll, on this announcement. There is so much more to be discussed, so much more that I could mention that is being built, whether it be the Suburban Rail Loop, creating thousands of jobs; building trams, creating thousands of jobs—there is just a whole bunch—tackling homelessness; and the investment in the big build of social and affordable housing, with 12 000 new homes. That needs to be commended. Like I said, this is not a budget just for one financial year. It is a legacy for our state—a state built on fairness, a state built on putting people first. I commend this bill to the house.
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:27): I rise today to speak on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020. Over the past few weeks we have heard over and over again that this budget is the dressing for Victoria’s wounds, that it is the force that will drive all Victorians onwards and upwards out of this pandemic. We all hope so. This year has been extremely tough. We started the year with catastrophic bushfires that saw many families lose their homes, Gippsland wiped out and the tourism industry destroyed. This was followed by the pandemic that has destroyed industries, left thousands unemployed and put many people out of business. For casual employees and those in the gig economy, this time has been particularly devastating, with no sick leave, no holiday pay and no annual leave to lean on. This year has simply been one full of hardships that no amount of sugar-coating can restore.
I am a believer in fairness. It is for that reason I believe we need to be realistic and acknowledge that this budget is a step in the right direction. There are winners, however, and there are losers in this budget. I think it is pertinent to touch on both. Firstly, this budget is a major win for Victorian schools. I am thrilled that of the 123 schools across Victoria that will receive funding for much-needed upgrades a significant portion are located in the Eastern Metropolitan Region. A total of eight special schools and 24 primary and secondary schools in Eastern Metropolitan Region will receive a combined sum of over $252 million to enhance their facilities and improve the learning outcomes of thousands of students.
On the other hand, a disappointment of this budget is the tax on electric vehicles. I believe the introduction of a tax on electric vehicles will discourage their uptake and will send the wrong message to potential buyers. This financial disincentive will stall efforts to reduce emissions from the transport sector. This seems counterintuitive and a backwards response to climate change. Electric vehicles are responsible for significantly lower emissions over their lifetime than conventional vehicles. Electric vehicles powered from renewable resources produce very low emissions—from a CO2 intensity of 6 grams per kilometre compared to an average new car with a CO2 intensity of 184 per kilometre. Because of this, electric vehicles are a critical factor in significantly reducing our carbon footprint and meeting global goals on climate change.
Climate change is an issue that must be addressed in all aspects of policy. We know that there will be significant environmental benefits to accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles across Victoria. Only recently we bore witness to devastating bushfires. These bushfires directly affected around 80 per cent of Australia’s population, destroyed over 13 million hectares of land and killed over a billion animals. We know that the increased occurrence and severity of bushfires is closely linked to climate change. We also know that the transport sector is Australia’s third-largest and fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only would there be significant benefits with respect to emissions, but cleaner cars on the road would have a remarkable impact on the quality of the air we breathe. Vehicle air pollution has been estimated to cause over 1700 deaths per year in Australia. Increasing the uptake of electric vehicles is the first step to avoiding such deaths.
With this information in mind it seems absurd that the government is willing to risk slowing electric vehicle uptake by introducing a tax at this time. Australia’s market for electric vehicles is already behind those of other developed nations, with electric vehicles accounting for only 0.6 per cent of new car sales in Australia in 2019. Countries such as Norway and New Zealand have successfully introduced rebates or tax credits for purchases of new electric vehicles and provided financial support for charging stations, discounts on parking fees, preferential parking spaces for electric vehicle drivers and access to express lanes on freeways. I believe Victoria should be exploring these very positive incentives for electric vehicles that may help us to more quickly and fully realise the benefits of clean transport.
Road funding reform is much needed. I support the notion of a road user tax that acts to discourage the use of private vehicles, reducing emissions and traffic in the process. However, this electric vehicle tax comes at the wrong time and in the wrong place. I believe more needs to be done to address Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions. This begins by supporting new technology that reduces our carbon footprint, not taxing it. I do congratulate the government on the new electric bus fleet, and I call for a bold plan to extend this to the commercial passenger vehicle fleet in the coming years.
It comes as no surprise that what I wish to mention next is one part of the budget that I support wholeheartedly—that is, the investment in rail. Over the past weeks it has been revealed that only 30 per cent of normal public transport patronage levels has returned. This means, as we continue to open up, more cars than ever will be hitting Victoria’s congested roads and clogging up our roadways. This comes at a cost. Reshaping the way Victorians think about and perceive public transport is essential for increasing public transport usage, reducing road congestion and reducing emissions.
I am glad the government has committed $2.2 billion to get the Suburban Rail Loop off the ground and up and running with stage 1. The Suburban Rail Loop is a fantastic project and will transform the way we Victorians commute. I note that I will be about 106 when it is completed, though. It will connect our hospitals, universities and the retail sector and create new employment opportunities. However, everyone knows that going downhill is easier, and stage 1 should start at Doncaster; it simply makes sense. Doncaster is a booming hub and is seeing major growth with large apartment blocks going up and a $100 million expansion of Doncaster Westfield progressively unfolding over the next few years. Do not let the Andrews Labor government be the next government to let Doncaster down. Add Doncaster to stage 1, and get the job done. Another great investment is the Geelong fast rail. This project is set to received $2 billion, and I hope that we will see a reduction in travel times and happy regional passengers in the near future.
This brings me to the next generation of trams. Just the other week I rose to highlight that the free tram zone was not the cause of congestion on Victorian trams; rather, I mentioned that the inaccessibility and lack of capacity of Melbourne’s ageing trams was the source of the problem. I am extremely pleased that the government is delivering 100 next-generation trams to better connect and enhance Melbourne’s tram network. More importantly, these trams will be more accessible, have increased passenger capacity and be manufactured in Victoria for Victorians. Furthermore, the investment in new tram maintenance facilities in Melbourne’s north-west will better maintain Victoria’s tram network. Ultimately public transport is better for our health, roads and environment, and I applaud the government for continuing to invest in public transport. However, I look forward to the day trackless trams finally hit Victorian roads, as we know it is the way to go, with Mr Chris Lowe’s electric bus.
It is absolutely necessary that this government bolster our health response. This means investing in more beds, nurses and doctors. We can never have too many. I am particularly happy to see that this government plans to implement minimum staff-to-resident ratios for private aged care. To ensure this the government is dedicating $40 million to train more personal care workers and nurses and $28 million for resident support.
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that it is essential that we invest in the latest technology in medical science and in local hospitals. In addition, I am pleased to see the Angliss Hospital in Ferntree Gully will receive $4.5 million to accelerate the hospital’s expansion. Those who have been in the Angliss Hospital will know that this building is dated and that population growth has seen patient numbers continue to increase. This expansion will benefit both patients and staff in the near future. Sadly, Maroondah Hospital’s plea for additional funding has been left unheard. This hospital is a major provider of specialist mental health services in Melbourne’s outer east, particularly in the Eastern Metropolitan Region. While Maroondah has recently gained a new emergency department, this does not assist the hospital’s other departments to improve and enhance patient outcomes.
Moreover, COVID-19 has demonstrated that our mental health support and facilities are inadequate. As members of this house we have a duty to improve and support services available to those suffering from poor mental health and mental disorders. As the government has acknowledged, there are deep cracks in our mental health system. Eight hundred and seventy million dollars towards mental health support services and $47.8 million towards critical early intervention are a step in the right direction, but $492 million to deliver 120 mental health beds in Geelong, Epping, Sunshine and Melbourne simply does not cut it. We need more. People who need mental health support are across Victoria, and this budget should reflect that. I have strongly advocated for additional mental health nurses and support workers for people suffering homelessness or who are on the brink of homelessness. That belief extends to all of Eastern Metro. I strongly believe that investing in Victorians’ mental health is one way that we as elected representatives will save lives. I urge this government to consider the need for additional support in other Eastern Metropolitan hospitals and health providers to improve overall community health outcomes and wellbeing.
This brings me to the social housing blitz. During my time inquiring into homelessness on the Legal and Social Issues Committee we discovered that Housing First must be the top priority of this government. Housing First means that mums and bubs are off the streets, not sleeping in their cars, and they are in the safety of four walls. Housing First means that the 25 000 individuals who were experiencing homelessness across Victoria on the last census night are in secure accommodation that is livable, comfortable and safe. I am thrilled that this budget includes $5.3 billion for 12 000 homes to be built throughout metropolitan and regional Victoria. The creation of 2900 new affordable and low-cost homes to assist low-to-moderate income earners will enable these individuals to live closer to their workplaces. The creation of 2000 new homes for Victorians living with mental illness will reduce the pressures and anxieties of these individuals and enable them to focus on their mental wellbeing.
However, not included in this budget is the replacement of old public housing units. As Mr Hayes has previously pointed out, there are hundreds of existing public and social housing that are currently in unlivable condition. Furthermore, what does this $5 billion mean for Eastern Metropolitan Region? What is the government doing for the families of Eastern Metropolitan Region suffering from inadequate or insufficient housing? What is the government doing for the mums sleeping in their cars? What of those fleeing domestic violence with nowhere to live? I wholeheartedly welcome the government’s announcement of additional social and affordable housing to start addressing Victoria’s homelessness crisis. Yet we must do more to fix this homelessness crisis in Victoria, and that comes down obviously to fixing our existing housing, creating additional housing and ensuring better management of the entire housing system. To conclude, this budget is on the right track, but there will always be room for improvement.
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:39): I just want to pick up on some of the points regarding the landfill levy, because I know that those opposite have an amendment and some concerns about that and I want to allay some of those concerns. The cost of sending waste to landfill in Victoria is currently amongst the lowest in Australia. It is less than half that of our neighbours in South Australia and New South Wales. There is no question that we need to align our rates with our neighbours to avoid becoming their dumping ground. I think that is only fair. I mean, you can see that there is going to be an obvious direction of behaviour if you do not have some sort of parity in that regard, just as happened in Queensland under Campbell Newman. So there is a good reason we are making these changes to help rectify that potential actual inequity, so to speak. It just does not make good sense.
This increase is also critical to securing the private sector investment in the waste and recycling industry that will create jobs in the recovery, and that is the thing that our government knows. We are all about driving jobs. That is actually a fundamental Labor element; it is part of our DNA, that we are always looking for that circular element. On the one hand obviously you do need to generate revenue to be able to provide excellent services to the people of Victoria, but also we need to drive jobs and to make sure that people at the end of the day can then afford not only to live and to have a reasonable state of existence, so to speak—I am paring it back a little bit there—but also to be able to buy things. We know at the end of the day when people have good employment they are more able to go shopping and to help support small businesses. There is that circular element to it, and that is the way we always like to think—to think from a holistic perspective about all our policies, what the ramifications are at the end of the day, in order to maintain and to drive jobs and therefore to keep the economy going. In this case we really are trying to move our economy forward after a really trying time over the past 12 months with the global pandemic.
These reforms are estimated to increase municipal and industrial landfill levy revenue by approximately $533 million and prescribed industrial waste landfill levy revenue by approximately $98 million over the forward estimates period. Over time the revenue raised from this levy will fall by design as waste is diverted from landfill and materials are put to better use. So we do have that objective of course—to reduce landfill over the next 10 years—and it makes a lot of good sense. Landfill is certainly an unproductive use of land. On top of the odours et cetera it is also not the best way to use materials. The more that we can repurpose and in fact not create the landfill in the first place the better it is for everyone, including those who live in proximity to landfill as well. Of course we know that even once a landfill site closes over it then still has to be managed for many, many, many years to come and simply does not have the same quality that it once had before it was a landfill site.
This financial mechanism and the Recycling Victoria policy were welcomed across the waste sector—and this is something that I know Ms Terpstra was speaking to earlier—as well as by the Municipal Association of Victoria. We know how integrally involved they are, and they certainly have representation across the state. So it is not like it is just one or two voices; it is statewide that we are getting this spectrum of endorsement for what is actually really important for Victoria’s future.
The revenue raised by this reform will be used to fund the Victorian government’s 10-year—yes, 10-year—circular economy policy and action plan, Recycling Victoria, including a nation-leading container deposit scheme. And I can echo also what Ms Terpstra said in that I know in the Southern Metropolitan Region this initiative is being applauded. It is being welcomed. We can also reap the benefits of other schemes that are older and have been running for a longer period of time. We can get the best of those schemes, so to speak, and move forward with a really, really terrific system into the future.
The increase in the levy is one part of an interdependent suite of policies that provide the necessary incentives for Victorians to increase resource recovery, reduce the amount of waste to landfill and encourage investment in new recycling technology. Of course I am a member of the government, but I certainly back the mechanism that is being facilitated by this state tax bill because it has a good purpose and it is for the betterment of all Victorians.
Obviously there are many, many aspects to a state tax bill, so I can speak to a couple of the others. If I can close off on one final point here. I think it was Mrs McArthur who was speaking to it, and I do not want to paraphrase her. I will just say that fundamentally this is a budget that is looking after people, and you cannot draw any other conclusion, I think, if you look across investment in transport, investment in schools, investment in hospitals, investment in roads, investment in recycling and other very, very positive activities, which will generate jobs into the future. It is very much about the people of Victoria, and I commend the bill to this house.
Following speech incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 15 September:
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan)
This government’s major problem is a spending addiction rather than its fondness for finding ways to pay for it. So looked at in isolation, this tax bill is not as bad as it could be.
But what it all adds up to is a debt problem, which it turns out is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the S&P group who down rated Victoria’s credit rating yesterday. The drop in the credit rating will reportedly cost taxpayers $10 million a year, which the government reportedly believes is not a problem.
Personally, I think the government’s attitude that wasting $10 million a year of our money doesn’t matter is a problem in itself.
What’s more, there is no plan to pay off the debt. To be clear, we are not complaining about the lack of taxation, it is the overspending and the waste that we are worried about.
To be fair, let’s acknowledge some good things. Bringing forward the land transfer duty concession and the other land tax exemptions will allow people to keep money in their pockets, where it should be, and encourage more efficient use of land and boost economic activity. The loss in revenue is modest.
However, let’s not forget this government has either expanded or created dozens of taxes since coming into office. And every year, there always seem to be a couple of truly puzzling decisions.
Last year it was a very punitive gold tax, which we discovered was carried out with virtually no consultation with the industry and little understanding of the unique circumstances of Victoria’s re-emerging gold industry.
This time around, some eagle-eyed person in the state Treasury has noticed that exports of meat have been growing strongly and decided to throw a wet blanket on it by increasing taxes on the sales of sheep and goats.
The Victorian government have not made a lot of new taxes in recent years, but the one thing that seems to get their goat is any suggestion that somebody in the country might be making a quid out of anything at all.
The other puzzling tax is the granny flat tax, which as others have pointed out might have been aimed to skim off profits from Airbnb, but will just as likely hurt grandmas trying to supplement their pensions and enjoy some company by having a lodger. Of course we will support amendments to remove this.
In addition, this bill applies some Vaseline to the first rung of the property ladder by changing the definition of a new home to a home that has never been sold or occupied, making it harder to get home owner grants. Maybe it would be better for everyone, including first home owners, if we didn’t hand out grants but removed stamp duties and other taxes.
The Liberal Democrats encourage the government to consider this approach, not only to first home owners, but to everyone as we attempt to get this state back on track.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (14:50)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that under sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution Act 1975 the Council does not have the power to make amendments to this bill. No question will be put on the clauses of the bill, and any proposed amendments must be in the form of a suggestion to the Assembly. Standing order 14.15 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments. Copies are available in the chamber.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I will move suggested amendment 1, standing in my name, which is an administrative amendment in relation to the bin tax. As foreshadowed in my second-reading contribution, it is our intention to oppose the provisions of this bill which relate to the landfill levy, and as indicated in the second-reading speech, the government is estimating to collect $630 million from the landfill levy over the forward estimates period. We do not support that impost, which will ultimately flow through to Victorian consumers. With this suggested amendment, which is to amend the heading—but more substantially, with my subsequent suggested amendments, seeking to omit clauses 22 through 28—we will be moving these amendments to remove these provisions from the act and preserve the status quo with effect to the landfill levy so that that $630 million impost will not flow through to Victorian consumers.
I am happy to move this first suggested amendment, which I will not seek to test by a division, and then perhaps, depending on how the committee proceeds, later move the omission of clauses 22 through to 28 en bloc, if that is possible, as omissions. But I move my suggested amendment, the purpose of which is to give effect to our proposal to remove the increase in the landfill levy:
1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 1, page 2, lines 1 to 4, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
Dr CUMMING: I am rising to speak to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020. I have a couple of concerns about these amendments.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, Dr Cumming, did you speak in the second reading?
Dr CUMMING: No, I did not. So I am allowed—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Because we are in committee now, not doing—
Dr CUMMING: But we are doing clause 1, and normally I would make a contribution on clause 1. Is that right?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You can make a contribution, yes, but it is not a second-reading contribution.
Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Deputy President. I am rising to speak to the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill and to raise my concerns in clause 1. I have listened to the debate, and I have similar concerns to those that have been raised today—firstly, my concern around raising new taxes at this time, during the time of, obviously, a pandemic and the government’s intention to do this at this time. I do understand that we obviously need to raise revenue, but my concerns are around if this is the right time.
I do understand the intent of raising revenue via the waste levy. This would actually bring us in line with other states. My concern is that for 10 years this government has been collecting a waste levy and that it has been very slow to actually spend the waste levy on what it was intended for. Yes, we have just gone through a recycling and waste inquiry; yes, we as a state need to get in line with the rest of the world by actually having the best of technology when it comes to waste and recycling. I would hope that this government spends the levy on new industries, environmentally friendly waste industries, because there are a lot of new industries that could be had here in Victoria. We could be totally self-sustainable, recycling our own waste—we currently have facilities that recycle mattresses—but we could do it on a scale that would put us in front of the rest of the world. I understand the government’s intention by raising the waste levy, because obviously we do not want our waste to go into other states because it is cheaper and to go across borders. We wish to obviously be competitive with all the states, and that is why the government is raising this levy. So I do understand that intention.
My other concern is around the ‘per carcass’ part of the legislation. My understanding is that that money will actually go into a fund for the meat industry. The people that I have reached out to in the meat industry have expressed to me that they are happy with the rise. They believe that we can actually sustain a rise of 10 cents, but for it to go to 30 cents I believe I would be right and correct with my concern that this additional money will be put back onto the consumer. The reason is that these are small carcasses. These are small animals. Therefore you are talking about large volumes. So they are happy to see it rise from 10 cents to 20 cents, but they feel that 30 cents is just going above and beyond.
The third issue I have raised concerns about is around what is nicknamed the granny flat tax.
A member interjected.
Dr CUMMING: It is not the technical name; no, it is not. But to simplify it, this government has actually spent a lot of time making sure that, due to homelessness, with the red tape when it comes to local government, there are easier ways to put a granny flat into your backyard and that you do not have to go through your local council if you have a family member living in that granny flat. That was a wonderful initiative from this government, and I commend the government for removing that red tape, because obviously it is a concern of the community to be able to have people ageing in their backyards—their parents, their family members. But what this has also enabled is good relationships with teenagers. There are many charitable organisations that actually have and encourage teenage retreats in backyards, because we all know that the teenage years can bring about a certain amount of upheaval in a family unit when there are smaller children or there are other issues going on within that family.
So the government has done many things to encourage these granny flats in people’s backyards, and I have concerns around the principal place of residence (PPR) now saying that this granny flat or this teenage retreat will possibly be proportionally taxed, because we all know it is not wealthy people who have to have somebody living in their backyards to pay their council rates, to get the additional income to pay their mortgage on their principal place of residence. So it is my belief that this part of this bill which amends the state taxation acts has gone too far.
That is my contribution to clause 1, and my first question would be to the minister. Are we able to have questions now, Deputy President?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
Dr CUMMING: Thank you. How is doubling the levy going to impact Victorian households and Victorian industry? I am referring to the deferred increase in Victorian landfill levies over the two years from 1 July 2021 to better align them with the neighbouring states.
Ms SYMES: I think it might be appropriate for me to respond to Dr Cumming’s question in relation to landfill levies at the same time as responding to Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendment, because effectively they are the same issues that are being raised. It was in February this year that the government announced increases to landfill levy rates, and, as Dr Cumming identified, this will bring us into line with neighbouring states. It is designed to drive greater investment in resource recovery and alternatives to landfill, and assurances to Dr Cumming that it is to support the recycling reforms outlined in Recycling Victoria: A New Economy, which is the Victorian government’s 10-year circular economic policy and action plan, which is in direct response to your concerns about making sure that it is done better, in a more environmentally self-sufficient way going forward. Obviously if we did not do this, our landfill levies would remain significantly lower than those of neighbouring states, which would risk Victoria becoming a literal dumping ground for interstate landfill waste as people seek to reduce costs in neighbouring states. As we know, we are not far away from some quite heavy population, so this is a real concern that should be addressed.
The increase in the landfill levy will also reduce the disposal of waste to landfill and incentivise innovation and investment to increase resource recovery and alternatives to landfill. So although there will be an increase in cost, this is about appropriate resources that will create new industries and in turn create new jobs, which is a great opportunity in a post-pandemic environment. I can confirm the additional revenue will be used to continue investment in important environmental and climate change initiatives, including the circular economic policy, which will be $300 million. That is the advice that I have.
Yes, we recognise that Victoria has had a hit in relation to its economic stability, but this is an appropriate policy that is balanced against the rest of the bill and which does not impose a lot of additional financial levies on many components of the Victorian community, so on balance this is an appropriate proposal that we think is in the best interests of Victoria.
Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What I have heard thus far is that there are still concerns that there will be cost shifting. So even with the additional levy and the intent of that levy there are still concerns in the community that there will be cost shifting. Has a costing been undertaken to ascertain the additional burden for households and businesses alike?
Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, what I can advise is that the amendment increases the metropolitan municipal and industrial landfill levy and the prescribed industrial waste landfill levy for category C and D wastes to $125.90 per tonne by 2023, which was going to be phased in over two years. In relation to the impact on individual municipalities, the application will be proportionate, so rural municipalities and industrial landfill levy rates will be different depending on the size of your shire and the size of your waste requirements.
Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister, for your response. Obviously we debated the Local Government Act 2020 just recently, and the vast majority of local councils have a waste charge now. Rather than it being encapsulated in their council rates, the residents now know exactly how much it is because that is what the Local Government Act states—that the councils need to show them how much they are collecting for waste. Then that is actually divided into each tenement, so therefore they actually know exactly what they are being charged for green waste, what they are being charged for their recycling and what they are being charged for their normal kerbside waste. That is fairly clear when you own a property and you are paying rates, and those charges are spelt out now. You are right, Minister, to say that each council has different costs. They have different amounts of waste that they collect and that is proportional or divided in that way. Everyone has that. It is not an exact fee.
But, Minister, my question earlier was around businesses and obviously commercial. Small businesses and others have obviously had a bit of a struggle during these last six months, and the reports that I have seen show there has been a huge amount of additional waste due to the lockdown. That has been seen from Uber Eats and everything else that people were doing. Maybe we can get on top of that in some way by having paper and glass and everything separated, but that makes additional costs.
I do understand the government’s intent. The way that it actually was rolled out—and I have raised this in this place at other times—means that local councils and even rural councils, especially rural councils, struggle to find that money to buy those additional bins. It is quite an expense, and this waste levy would actually go some way to making sure that those councils have those resources; that they do not come out of council rates; that it is very clear that you are collecting this levy; that you are buying bins; that it is for this purpose of having better recycling, better outcomes and better resource recovery; and that it is not a charge on your local government rates.
So my question, again, Minister, is: have you actually undertaken those costings? And when councils actually apply for these waste levies or the metropolitan waste management groups or the like fill out those grant applications to the government, will the government make sure that that is proportionate and that those councils who cannot afford it and that would normally have to look at paying for it through council rates will actually be the beneficiaries of this levy?
Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, the anticipated benefit of this landfill levy is that it will actually reduce waste because there will be incentives for innovation and investment to increase alternative measures to landfill. Arguably to do nothing would mean that everyone who can no longer use their keep cups and people who are ordering Uber Eats will have no reason to change if we do not make some changes that will change behaviour.
It is important to work with local councils so that they can change their practices to reduce their costs and come up with alternatives, which is what the Recycling Victoria program is all about. That is $300 million which is going to be available to work with private industry and to work with councils to come up with different innovations, technologies and plants that might have alternative uses for products. Without having such a program, how do you change behaviour? This is certainly something that we think will produce a better outcome for Victoria for some of the reasons that I have presented.
I do acknowledge that this is a financial impost on councils, but I would point out that we have previously delayed the increase due to economic uncertainty, but we think it is timely in a recovery sense to get on with it.
Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Minister, for your response. There could be an alternative argument to that, being that we understand that the levy is to collect a pot of money that could be spent on better technologies, and everyone is in agreeance on that. Is that going to be a deterrent? Does the consumer actually think about that? Not necessarily, because they might not necessarily be paying rates, they might not be putting it in their kerbside bin but they might be putting that rubbish in a public bin, respectfully, so that is not the argument that I believe is to be had. I believe the argument is: yes, you need to be able to collect a levy so that you have the funds to be able to build the new technologies that we need, and the best outcome is for those resources not to end up in landfill. The best outcome is for those resources, those materials that we can recycle, to not be put into landfill but actually be collected appropriately from the kerbside or those public bins and appropriately go straight to the recycling facility for re-use. But of course we need to actually have the levy to build the facilities, and of course private enterprise is part of this equation.
The only incentivised way, Minister, if that was your argument, is that each coffee cup would have 10 cents on it and you would be charged that—that is, a container deposit scheme, and there are a lot of people in agreement on those things—but this is a landfill levy.
As I raised earlier in my contribution, I understand that the Victorian state government has been behind all the other states, and we do not want to become the dumping ground. We do have to align with our neighbouring states, so I agree with the government. I also agree with the government that we need to spend the levy rather than do what has happened over the last 10 years where that $500 million-plus has sat in the state government coffers and has propped up the government’s AAA rating. Well, the AAA rating is not there anymore. I am hoping that the government actually spend the levy when they collect it, and they do so in a fashion that keeps up with the community’s expectation of having the best sustainable recycling facilities in Australia, if not the world.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister will take that as a statement.
Suggested amendment negatived.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is a different sort of bill because of it being a Treasury bill, so we do not even need to put clause 1. Are there any questions on any further individual clauses? Can you just give me an indication which clause you wish to ask a question on?
Dr CUMMING: Deputy President, if you wish for me to indicate where I have questions within this bill, I have questions in relation to the increase of the livestock duty, which I raised earlier—the sheep and goats over three years. I have a couple of questions on that.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Let us stay on clause 1, and you just ask your questions.
Dr CUMMING: I am happy to do that. This could be nice and short and sharp. Minister, on increasing the rate of livestock duty on sheep and goats over three years from 1 January 2021 with the revenue used to support the industry, my first question is: how it this going to impact the Victorian meat export industry?
Ms SYMES: As the responsible minister, with my agriculture hat on in relation to this rise in levy, this is a matter that has undergone extensive consultation with stakeholders. We had an online discussion paper that was out, and there were various views on the requirements to increase this levy.
It is currently a 12 cent-per-head levy, which has not changed since 1999, and I need to make it very clear to the chamber that this levy has two broad purposes. It creates a fund that would compensate producers for loss incurred by declared diseases. This is something that has been very, very important in the poultry industry this year with avian influenza requiring the extermination of thousands of birds. It does not really discriminate by farm and it is not often you can lay blame on any particular producer, so spreading the risk and ensuring that producers have got access to compensation when an invisible illness hits their herd is appropriate. That is an important safety measure for industry. It also pays for programs and projects that directly benefit the sheep and goat industry, including control and eradication of diseases, so not just compensation for loss but actually putting in programs that prevent and deter and ensure that we have a strong industry.
This is a fund that can benefit industry by increasing, and when you look at something that has not even risen by CPI it was important to have a look at what was appropriate for industry. So obviously we went out for consultation, and there were a few options. Those were do not change, go the full change or incrementally increase the levy. I must point out that the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) actually advocated for a full increase straight up, which I did not think was appropriate, particularly at this point of time when we are wanting the industry to be strong and well positioned for growth. Obviously we are renowned for our quality prime produce. There are potentially new export markets that will be interested, particularly in the new world where Australia is going to be particularly attractive to countries who will be wanting to buy from COVID-free countries, for example. So we are in a really good position to grow this important industry, and obviously we have also had a good year for people to start recovering from drought and have confidence in building up their breeding stock and the like.
This is money that is raised by industry for industry, and the incremental increases are something that I support. With the consultation paper, I have got to say I spent a lot of time writing that paper that went public and we did not get a lot of feedback, which would indicate to me that there was not a huge passion one way or the other. So landing in the middle with an incremental increase I think is appropriate, and I think it is a great fund that certainly benefits industry. They give me ideas on how they want to spend the money, and they come up with some great ideas. I think that going forward this will really benefit industry, which is why I support the increase at this time.
Dr CUMMING: Minister, you touched on that the Australian Meat Industry Council has been consulted. Is that correct? I am getting a nod, so I will accept that. And you have actually touched on one of my other questions: how is this revenue going to be isolated? Is it actually isolated currently? I am getting another nod, so thank you for that, Minister. They were the questions I had when I read the amendments.
Ms Symes: It is a dedicated fund.
Dr CUMMING: It is a dedicated fund, excellent. What I understand then is it is a bit like a piece of string. It is charged on the number of carcasses, so depending on how many are produced it would obviously vary. I am pleased to hear that it is also used for compensation when those diseases go through.
My feedback when I reached out to the people in the industry that I know was that they were very happy with the increase from 12 cents to 20 but they are concerned about raising it to the 30-cent mark. Being that there is that possibility for those costs to go back to the consumer, they felt that the 20 cents was a yes. It has not been raised for a long time, and they would like to see a raising, but 30 cents is like a tripling.
Minister, are you really sure that that is the amount of revenue that the industry is requiring or requesting for the shortfalls or issues that they have, because from my perspective in Western Metro the vulnerable community that I have struggle to buy meat. I know we are talking sheep and goats and smaller carcasses. Lamb is so expensive and beef is very expensive, and during these COVID times when things are not being exported to the same extent they were hoping to see a decrease in the cost to the consumer, but all they have seen is almost $20 if not $40 per kilo, which they have really struggled with. My community seems to eat a lot of sausages.
Ms SYMES: Currently the rate is 12 cents per head. From January 2021 it will go to 19; January 2022 , to 27; and January 2023, to 35. As I said, this did go out to consultation through various means, including receiving responses from producers and peak bodies. As I said, the number of respondents was low, but the response broadly supported an increase, and I again point to the fact that the advocacy of the VFF was to go straight to 35 cents in one year. I thought an incremental increase was more appropriate.
Directly correlating with this increase being passed on to any consumer, you cannot really look at it in isolation because there are actually other programs that will reduce costs to producers. For example, the tagging of sheep in the first instance actually cuts out a lot of time for livestock agents and farmers, so they are reducing costs there. They might come up with programs that increase innovation technology to make their job easier, again reducing costs. So I would say that I cannot guarantee it will be a cost-neutral investment, but this does fund future technology that might enhance birthrates or resistance to drought or whatever. Everything they spend it on actually helps the industry save money and become more productive, and therefore hopefully there is a fair offset in the costs and therefore we would not see prices passed on to consumers.
Dr CUMMING: Minister, my question is: do you have an estimated cost, or could you give me last year’s amount—the amount that we have had previously—so I can understand that?
Ms SYMES: Yes, Dr Cumming. The estimated increase will raise over $6.1 million over the budget and forward estimates. That will go directly into the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund. I do not have the past figure on me, but it is also a little bit difficult to compare it because we amended the legislation, this year or last year, in the Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 to enable that fund to actually be opened up to spending on different things. So it is a little bit difficult to compare the previous bucket with the new bucket.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, can I just ask you to assist the committee. Are you intending to circulate any amendments?
Dr CUMMING: Deputy President, no. Seeing as my amendments were exactly the same as the opposition’s, for expediency and time it is probably best that I do not just keep jumping up and doing the same. I am more than happy for the opposition to lead the way with the amendments.
Mrs McARTHUR: I am just interested in the legal aspect of this matter relating to the levy on sheep and goats. Has the minister considered the High Court rulings in Ha v. NSW 1997 and Logan Downs Pty Ltd v. Queensland, holding that a tax on owning certain livestock is an excise and that the application of section 90 of the Australian constitution would make any such duty invalid. The effect of clause 13 is surely to increase a duty that can only be imposed by the federal government—just if you would clarify that.
Ms SYMES: No, I have not received any legal advice to deal with the issue that you raise, nor have we been presented with any challenges that would cause me to seek that legal advice. What I would say is that these are longstanding industry partnerships that we hold. We have the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund, the Cattle Compensation Fund, the pork compensation fund and I think there is a bee one. So there is a long history of these existing, and I am not aware of any legal challenges. Hopefully you are not sparking one with your question today, but I do not have any legal advice in relation to your question.
Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Minister. I think it was raised also in the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee as an issue.
Ms SYMES: Apologies, Mrs McArthur. I will certainly take it on board to go and have a look at that and perhaps give you some further advice once I get my advice.
Dr CUMMING: The other concern that I have is the introduction of more consistent restrictions on deriving income from PPR for land tax purposes and fixed variation administration issues. How does this affect it if you are paying board?
Ms SYMES: I might just take some time to address some of the issues that have been raised in relation to the partial exemption for separate residences on PPR land in relation to the use of deriving income. These amendments are not about an impost on granny flats. There is no expectation that the separate residence changes will affect family arrangements that are not profit-making in nature. First of all, there is a threshold, so you have got to have property of over $1 million, not including land property. So it is not going to actually even come into effect until you are looking at people that are really obtaining a commercial advantage. It is not about people that are paying board, expenses and your normal family-type arrangements.
It is something that is continually raised with me actually in country Victoria in places like Bright and Beechworth, where you have a hotel industry that has rooms, and they have to pay tax when people stay there, but they know that there is citizen A, citizen B and citizen C who have got maybe a rural property and are putting on three or four cabins and renting them out on Airbnb and potentially not paying what they should be paying because they have created a system that is outside of being able to be captured. This is about capturing genuine commercial operations, not about deterring people from helping a family member live in a self-contained unit in the backyard.
I guess I would urge members to refrain from referring to this tax as a granny flat tax, because there will be very few if any situations where that is actually going to be a particular residence that is going to be impacted.
Dr CUMMING: Minister, just to clarify your answer to my question, am I right to say it is actually $1 million, or is it the principal place of residence? Because there are plenty of people whose principal place of residence does not necessarily reflect the value of their property. And my question is: why hasn’t this amendment maybe even mirrored some of the intentions in the way of stipulating that, not dissimilar to the planning act that actually shows how that second dwelling—that granny flat, that teenage retreat—needs to be housing a family member and that is how it is not triggered in the way of planning schemes.
The government could have easily had something not dissimilar in the way of wording to make sure that it is very clearly stated or shown within this tax amendment that your intention is obviously when people have a commercial aspect rather than talking about the dwelling. And I would like you to clarify that aspect around the $1 million. Because for many people—just by virtue of how big their property is or they are closer to the city—the value of their property is more than that but it is their principal place of residence. They are an older person, through no fault of their own the value has increased, and they have their grandchild living in the back because they are going to uni. They should not be charged a land tax because they have got someone additional in the back.
Ms SYMES: I do not disagree with that, Dr Cumming. The vast majority of Victorians do not pay land tax, and there is certainly nothing in this bill that will change that. The existing tax-free threshold is $250 000 for site value, and that also applies to partial interests in land. So, for example, if you are a single property owner that lives in your home and you use one-quarter of the property for a granny flat or a teenage retreat or a pool house or whatever somebody else might be able to be utilising, you would not pay any land tax unless the underlying land of that proportion was worth more than $1 million. It is just not going to be that application. This is about commercial operations, your serious Airbnbers that are making a commercial interest that most people in the community would expect would attract tax.
Mr HAYES: I want to ask the minister just on this issue of land tax, many residential properties in Southern Metropolitan would have a land value quite easily of $1 million, and I just want to get clear if you are renting out a garage, granny flat, an addition or any rooms in your house to anybody, does that make you liable for land tax?
Ms SYMES: The answer is maybe sometimes, if it is a commercial arrangement. There is no definition of ‘rent’ in this legislation, but rent has its ordinary meaning for the purposes of the PPR concession provision under the trust surcharge regime, and that is that rent is generally a regular payment to a landlord for the use of property or land, which is separate to making a contribution to the household budget or reimbursement of your gas bill or your usage or whatever. It is about making a commercial benefit in relation to the arrangement that you have made.
The other important aspect is in relation to the person who would be receiving the payment. The monetary payment, whether it amounted to income or not—bearing in mind it is not also defined but is said to have its ordinary meaning—would be determined based on the facts of the matter. Several factors could be considered in whether a payment would constitute income, therefore potentially attracting the tax. No one factor would be determinative on its own. Important factors include whether the arrangement has a profit-making character and the relationship between parties to the arrangement. I think, as Dr Cumming has indicated, regarding teenage retreats and the like, it is good practice to get your teenage kids to perhaps contribute a little bit if they are going to be in the family household when they have got other options to move out. They are good life lessons. They are the sorts of things that would not be considered income. They would be payments between family members, so it is much less likely to attract the attention of the State Revenue Office (SRO) for the purpose of a commercial arrangement.
Mr HAYES: Thanks, Minister. Just further to that, then, are payments between family members specifically excluded in the legislation? I say that because I understand that even such payments have to be considered in making declarations to the Department of Social Services, and what they regard as income can be pretty hotly contested. I would feel more comfortable if there was something saying such in the legislation. But I saw you shake your head, so I imagine that is the answer.
Ms SYMES: A family relationship would be a relevant factor to demonstrate that perhaps it was not a commercial arrangement and was an arrangement more of convenience or family relationship. But if it was more than that, if it was a commercial arrangement and if you could have the same tenant that was not related to you but they were given the same conditions, then that may indeed attract this provision.
Dr CUMMING: I thank the minister for her answers to the questions thus far. Minister, a lot of people, when they look at a property, maybe even for the first time—even a young person might look at a property, or anyone just getting into the market—sometimes look at it because it has got a lot of rooms, thinking, ‘Wow, I can grab this mortgage, and then I can actually rent out a couple of rooms or have somebody boarding with me to be able to pay the mortgage’. Minister, if there is a mortgage on your principle place of residence and you choose to actually have people in other rooms so that you can actually just pay the mortgage, is that considered an income?
Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, rooms within a house—for example, boarders—are not impacted by this legislation. It needs to be a separate residence.
Dr CUMMING: Sorry, I should have clarified. You might be purchasing a property that has a granny flat at the back, or it may have two or it may have a little caravan or—I do not know. Would you consider that? I guess my question is, if they have got a mortgage and then they choose to—I know you do not want us to say ‘granny flat’, but I am going to keep calling it a granny flat and a teenage retreat because it is an easier way to understand that it is an additional dwelling on land. If they have a mortgage and they are choosing to have somebody in that granny flat or teenage retreat to help pay the mortgage, to help pay their council rates—because they should not be being charged land tax because it is their principal place of residence—is that going to be fine?
Ms SYMES: We have a man cave at my house, which was the attraction of buying our property and which is the reason my husband made me move. There are a range of living arrangements that people are attracted to, but the financial situation of the landowner is irrelevant to the determination of whether they are deriving an income and therefore treating the property as a commercial interest. But I would point out that if you do have a mortgage, then very often you can use the income that you derive from the properties that you are leasing out or renting out, or have on Airbnb, whatever the term is, against your tax.
Dr CUMMING: Minister, I thank you, because these are the questions that it is always great to have in the committee stage so when people reflect and look back they understand the intent of the government. One of the issues that you raised earlier is that many rural residents in tourist locations use part of their principal place of residence to generate rental income in the short-term rental market. Are you saying that they are the ones that you are going to capture? This will obviously adversely affect them at a time when regional tourism should be supported and encouraged.
Ms SYMES: Again, in terms of principal place of residence, it has got to be a separate residence. You could ask the question: could you just build a verandah from one house to the other? But that does not get you out of having two separate residences. I think I would come back to my reflection on my experience on the ground in country Victoria in the tourism industry. Of course we want people visiting country Victoria. But for those people that make a permanent living out of accommodation services and pay tax, I can tell you they know when there are people with cottages that are not doing the right thing and can charge less to supplement generally a second income. So in balancing attraction of residence, keeping prices down and making sure that there is an even playing field when it comes to the provision of accommodation I think this bill gets the balance right. Will it pick up every single Airbnb? No, we have established that. But if somebody is genuinely making a commercial decision to create almost a business or a side business, then I think it is appropriate. I think the pub test would tell you that those people should be paying land tax for the benefit that they are accruing from effectively the systems that we have now created. But I would also point out that when it comes to tourism the government has got other levers that we can use to ensure that we are getting people back to country Victoria.
Dr CUMMING: I thank the minister for her response. I absolutely hate the saying ‘pub test’. In Western Metro we like to say ‘the bar test’ because we have more bars than pubs; just joking there, Minister. You actually had me thinking. Obviously in Western Metro there are people who have those additional granny flats if they are on a property, but they actually might have someone who makes it into an art studio or makes it into an office space, such as during this pandemic when we were encouraged to work from home. That is their principal place of residence and they are having someone there for maybe $100 a week to have that art studio in their backyard. In my area a lot of the Vietnamese community have a small business operating out of a little granny flat or a garage or the like. Are you now going to want to charge them a proportion of that in land tax?
I do understand there are many people who during this time, during the pandemic, you requested to work from home. Is this your intent? Something you could have done better—although who am I to suggest—is that within the planning scheme obviously there are hotels and motels. Yes, you have this issue with Airbnb and people deriving incomes and those kinds of things. But is this the best way to sort out the problem of motels and hotels—by having people actually put their hand up and declare that that is what they are rather than trying to derive an income from their principal place of residence? There are many people such as hairdressers who you go to and get your nails done at their house, those kinds of things, Minister.
Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, it is a longstanding principle of the land tax regime that income-producing assets are not principal primary residences and are therefore not exempt. I would not describe this as fixing a problem; I would describe it as bringing in equity for the different ways that people might formalise or create situations that are not quite as formal as a lease. For anybody that currently leases out to a business to potentially use part of their property for being a mechanic or whatever, there is a lease. They are already captured by this. But if they are not on a lease and it is a separate arrangement but the commercial interest is the same, this would potentially ensure that those two different arrangements that are producing the same outcome are treated the same for the purposes of your liability to the SRO.
Dr CUMMING: I will keep it under the 5 minutes.
Ms SYMES: You are way over.
Dr CUMMING: No, I am not. It is each topic. I am concerned, and I really would like you to clarify that, because we are encouraged to work at home. We are encouraged for many different reasons to try to derive an income from our principal place of residence in lots and lots of ways. There are so many reasons why you want to do that, and I get it. But this is about the teenage retreat, the granny flat, the additional dwelling and the uses of that. What I am trying to explain is that, especially in my Western Metro area, there are a lot of small businesses that are principal places of residence, and we encourage that. We encourage that home office.
Ms SYMES: This does not change that.
Dr CUMMING: I am getting there. We encourage the beauty salon. We encourage the art studio. We encourage that, and then you might have someone come in and have part of that space, and I really do not want the government or others to be looking for the mice and rats of money, I guess.
Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, working from home is not impacted by this legislation at all. You can continue to do that without attracting any land tax. Whether you need council permits and the like is a separate matter, registration is a separate matter, but when it comes to land tax, working from home, your principal place of residence—no impact.
Dr CUMMING: Even in the granny flat or in the teenage retreat?
Ms SYMES: If it is yours, no.
Mr HAYES: This is probably more of a statement than a question, unless you would like to comment. Minister, having an exemption for the principal place of residence was pretty sacrosanct. And now making this provision brings into doubt whether your letting out of some of that area is income deriving, and what constitutes income suddenly brings the principal place of residence into the land tax trap, would you say?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister will take that as a statement.
Clauses 1 to 21—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).
Clause 22 (15:54)
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I move:
2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Part heading preceding clause 22, omit this heading.
3. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Division heading preceding clause 22, omit this heading.
4. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 22, omit this clause.
5. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 23, omit this clause.
6. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 24, omit this clause.
7. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 25, omit this clause.
8. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Division heading preceding clause 26, omit this heading.
9. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 26, omit this clause.
10. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 27, omit this clause.
11. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 28, omit this clause.
The effect of these is to omit certain headings and omit the operative clauses with respect to the change to the landfill levy. As indicated in the second-reading debate, we do not support the increase in the landfill levy as set out by the government and as given effect by this bill. The effect of these amendments would be to omit the operative clauses and preserve the status quo with respect to the landfill levy to avoid that $630 million impost ultimately on Victorian households. I commend those amendments to the house.
Dr CUMMING: Deputy President, are we talking to all the amendments, not just the first one?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, amendments 2 to 11.
Dr CUMMING: Excellent. I had not dissimilar amendments. I have chosen not to table them, seeing that they would have been absolutely identical. I would like to thank the Treasurer’s office for meeting with me today so I was able to go through all my concerns, and I thank the minister in this house for answering my questions on all of my concerns today. I will leave it at that.
Ms SYMES: I think that the issues that are the subject of Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendments have been well canvassed in the conversation in the chamber. I just indicate that the government is not in a position to accept them, suggested or otherwise.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We are dealing with Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendments 2 to 11. This is one of those very rare times where, if you agree with Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendments, you actually vote no. The question is:
That the part heading and division headings preceding clause 22, the division heading preceding clause 26 and clauses 22 to 28 be agreed to.
Committee divided on question:
| Ayes, 25 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Meddick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Hayes, Mr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | ||
| Noes, 12 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Quilty, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
Question agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 44—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).
Clause 45 (16:06)
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I move:
12. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Clause 45, lines 28 to 30, omit all words and expressions on these lines.
It is simply to amend a title in clause 45. The effect of amendments 12, 13 and 14 are to omit the granny flat tax provisions, which we have spoken about. I know the Leader of the Government does not like the reference to a granny flat tax, but that is the effect of what it is. The intent of this amendment and the two which are tested by this amendment is to omit the provisions with respect to changing the exemption around principal place of residence from the government’s proposal, which would include rent as a basis on which the PPR exemption is lost, to preserve the status quo with respect to the principal place of residence exemption. So if members do not support the granny flat tax, the extension of land tax to granny flats that are rented out, they need to support this amendment, and I have so moved that amendment.
Mr HAYES: I thank the minister for her answers to my questions. This provision certainly worries me. I think it might hurt poorer people more than those that are well off. This provision in the budget is a thinly disguised attack on the family home. The state government is trying to find a way to extend its net of land tax over the principal place of residence. It is the thin end of a wedge that is being pushed by economists to tax the family home.
The Sustainable Australia Party supports home ownership and I support home ownership, so what is new? After all, everyone in this place would say they support home ownership; the difference is that we mean it. Other parties say they are concerned about housing affordability, but in reality their actions are putting housing out of the reach of ordinary people, especially the young. The proof is in the result of the last 20 years of Liberal and Labor policies at both federal and state levels. They fuel demand and push prices higher principally by ramping up population growth, which is the enemy of housing affordability and home ownership.
Economists do not like policies like ours, which protect home ownership. Fresh from their triumphs in trashing our manufacturing sector via free trade and globalisation, trashing our education and training system with fees, deregulation and foreign students and trashing our retirement income system with their undermining of the age pension, they want to level the playing field—their words—over home ownership. They do not like the family home being exempt from land tax or capital gains tax or the pension assets test. They whisper their free market fundamentalism in the ears of our politicians, and it seems they have caught the ear of the Treasurer here—not for the first time. The extension of land tax to the principal place of residence, where people might earn a little bit of extra money by having a boarder or an outhouse or a relative living on the property or sharing with a friend, will bring the family home into the land tax net—another attack on home ownership, pure and simple. The government sometimes comes in here claiming a mandate for its policies. Well, where is the mandate here? Where is this in the government’s election promises? It is an attack on the family home when they should be trying to promote home ownership. I will be supporting the amendment.
Dr CUMMING: I thank the minister for her answers to all my questions. I have a level of comfort from the answers that were given by you, Minister, but I will still be supporting this amendment for the reasons that in my mind it looks very black and white and, in future, I wonder how this may be interpreted. But I do hope that they actually listen to the contribution that you made and to what the government has intended—that there is not a tax on granny flats or student retreats or art studios or teenage retreats or the many other reasons why there is an additional dwelling on a principal place of residence.
Ms SYMES: I thank members for their contributions in relation to this one. I can, in all honesty, say if I thought this was going to impact on family arrangements and granny flats and the like, it would not be something that I would personally support either. I accept your views, but I want to reiterate that these changes are in no way designed to impact home ownership. The change does not affect family arrangements that are inherently not profit making in nature—for example, where the owner of the principal place of residence is only receiving a small or nominal payment for board or lodging or a family member merely contributes towards utility costs, maintenance repairs or similar expenses for the property, which would be the case in the overwhelming majority of situations, whether it is a teenage retreat or a granny flat. This is to remove a land tax exemption for profit-making commercial operations that people may be creating adjacent to their principal place of residence within their property—that is, Airbnb—which will balance the ledger with those that are trying to compete with genuine accommodation providers such as hotels, particularly in regional Victoria.
Committee divided on suggested amendment:
| Ayes, 15 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Noes, 22 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Ratnam, Dr | Tierney, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Maxwell, Ms | ||
Suggested amendment negatived.
Clauses 45 to 70—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).
Reported to house without amendment.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (16:20): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (16:20): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council has agreed to the bill without amendment.
Sitting suspended 4.21 pm until 4.44 pm.
Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Ms TIERNEY:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:44): I am pleased to make some remarks on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020 this afternoon, which is an important bill for the governance and accountability of this state. Contrary to popular perception, this bill is not about paying members of Parliament—in fact members of Parliament are not paid through this bill at all—but it is about funding the oversight structures that we rely on to ensure good governance and integrity in our institutions in Victoria.
The bill provides funding for the Parliament, as broken down into its individual component departments: the Department of the Legislative Council; the Department of the Legislative Assembly; the parliamentary investigatory committees; the Department of Parliamentary Services, which provides of course for operation of electorate offices; the Parliamentary Budget Office, which is a relatively recent addition to parliamentary infrastructure; the Victorian Inspectorate; the Auditor-General; IBAC; and the Victorian Ombudsman.
Now, as always, the appropriation of Parliament bill is designed to perpetuate the fiction that funding for Parliament and funding for our oversight institutions is independent of government. That is why we have a separate bill that quarantines Parliament and quarantines those parliamentary offices that provide oversight function from the main appropriation bill. But of course the reality is that the appropriation of parliament bill is a government bill. It is put together by the Treasurer. It is done on the basis of an appropriation message from the Governor on the recommendation of the government, and of course the numbers that are reflected in it are the numbers, the decisions and the appropriations that the government has decided upon.
So while the bill creates the fiction of independent funding for Parliament and independent funding for the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman and IBAC, in reality the funding in the bill and the broader funding structure as reflected in the budget papers is that level of funding that the government wishes to provide to Parliament and wishes to provide to the oversight bodies. And unfortunately we see consistently that the funding provided, particularly to those independent officers of Parliament like the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, and institutions like IBAC, is not adequate for their needs. We have seen in this year’s budget record expenditure. We are seeing for the first time in the state’s history expenditure of just under $90 billion, yet the allocation to our oversight institutions—like IBAC, the Ombudsman and indeed elements of the Parliament—is lagging.
One of the perennial problems we have seen with this funding mechanism and indeed the funding structure is the way in which the Legislative Council is funded and the failure to recognise administratively the need for appropriate funding for the Legislative Council, having regard to the work that the Legislative Council undertakes—both the work that is undertaken in the chamber by way of the committee-of-the-whole processes and the demand for resources that places on the Department of the Legislative Council. We have seen just this afternoon a committee stage on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020, which involved multiple amendments from multiple parties, and that was a relatively simple one compared to much of the other legislation this house deals with, which puts substantial demand on the resources of the Department of the Legislative Council which simply does not exist in the other place.
If members of the Council look at proceedings in the other place, they will see that they do not go through committee stages like we do in this place. They do not have the complexity of amendments, which require the preparation of running sheets and require administration by table officers in the way that this house does. So although the number of members in this house is half that of the other place, the operations of this place are far more complex, and the resources required by the Department of the Legislative Council are as a consequence greater just to oversee the basic administrative operations of the house.
Likewise, in committee operations we see that we have vastly more upper house committee activity than occurs in Legislative Assembly committees and indeed even in many joint committees. So while we have dedicated funding for joint committees through the appropriation line on joint committees, we do not necessarily have adequate funding provided to the Legislative Council and recognition of the volume of work that is done by Legislative Council committees—the breadth of that work, the level of stakeholder engagement involved in that work and even the mere number of submissions received by Legislative Council committees compared to joint committees and Assembly committees. So there is vastly more activity undertaken in the Legislative Council compared to the other place, and that is not often recognised in the preparation of this bill.
When it goes through Treasury and the Treasury processes, inevitably within government when a government is producing an $89 billion budget, the $250 million that is appropriated through the appropriation for Parliament bill is often a secondary consideration. It does not get the attention through budgetary processes that its importance deserves. That is reflected in looking at the appropriation line for the Legislative Council this year, which shows in the estimates a reduction in funding from $5.8 million to $5.7 million. Now, that is the appropriation bill. Obviously the appropriation structure is more complex than just the bill. If you look at the appropriation table from the budget papers, it shows Legislative Council funding of $22.8 million in 2019–20 and $22.8 million in 2020–21. Now, of course that includes the special appropriations which cover salaries, so it is not like with like. But the point is that we are not seeing the escalation in funding required for the Department of the Legislative Council, and we are not seeing other funding arrangements which were in place outside the direct appropriation reflected in the appropriation.
Year after year we have been in a situation with the Department of the Legislative Council where the ultimate funding is often patched together by agreement between the houses or by agreement at the last minute with the Treasurer. We saw in the last Parliament this house actually proposed an amendment to the parliamentary appropriation bill with respect to funding for the Legislative Council to ensure that it was preserved. Ultimately the Treasurer agreed to do that, and the house did not proceed with the amendment. But it always seems that funding for the Legislative Council is a last-minute consideration, is an oversight and often needs to be patched together by agreement with the other place to maintain the level of funding that we have had in the previous financial year. It would be good to see funding for the Department of the Legislative Council put on a sustainable basis and reflected in the estimates and in the budget going forward and not have to revert to trying to make third-party arrangements, as has been the case for a long time.
The other aspect of the bill I would like to talk about is the funding of the integrity agencies. The integrity agencies have been brought into this legislation in recognition of their role as independent officers of the Parliament and in recognition that their funding should be independent of government, even though, as I said, that is a fig leaf in reality. What we are seeing in this bill are, in effect, real cuts to funding for the Ombudsman and for IBAC. Over the last couple of months both the Ombudsman and the Commissioner of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Honourable Robert Redlich, have both made a number of comments in relation to their funding. In relation to IBAC, Commissioner Redlich, leading up to the budget, said in October this year:
IBAC is experiencing serious constraints on its operations due to its current, perilous budgetary position.
He went on to say:
Exposing and preventing corruption cannot be adequately done on a static, inadequate budget.
So what has been the response from government in relation to that? Well, what we have actually seen is a $4 million reduction in IBAC’s budget from the financial year just finished, 2019–20, to the current financial year. The total funding shown in the budget papers shows IBAC funding falling from $46.6 million in the 2019–20 financial year to $42.2 million in the 2020–21 financial year, a reduction of $4.4 million.
We saw the Premier go on in the media and make public statements that funding has increased when in fact his own budget papers and indeed the appropriation bill show that the level of funding for IBAC is less than it was in the 2019–20 financial year. We have seen a budget reduction of $4.4 million—roughly 10 per cent of its budget—between the financial year just finished and the financial year that we are now in. When this bill reaches committee, we will be seeking to propose an amendment to restore that $4.4 million by way of an additional appropriation voted into the bill we are dealing with this afternoon.
The other area where we are seeing substantial concerns involves the Victorian Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s annual report has been released today, and it contains more commentary from Deborah Glass, the Victorian Ombudsman, as to the perilous state of the budget for the Victorian Ombudsman. In the annual report, the Ombudsman has stated:
… once again my ongoing funding has fallen substantially short of what is needed to respond to public expectations of my office.
It goes on:
… the apparent reluctance to fund my office could risk looking like an attempt to undermine it.
What a situation, where this government is under investigation by the Ombudsman on a number of fronts, on a number of political fronts, and where the political activities of the government—the political activities and the interplay between the Labor Party and the government—are once again the subject of an Ombudsman’s investigation. We have seen that before with the red shirts and any number of other matters. We are now seeing it with branch-stacking allegations against the Labor Party and the implication that that involved government taxpayer-funded resources. So it should be of concern to every member of this Parliament when the Ombudsman, an independent officer of this Parliament, raises in her annual report concerns about the funding of her office—practical cuts, effective cuts to the funding of her office—and the implications that has for the conduct of her investigations.
Immediately following the budget, the Ombudsman made a number of public statements. In relation to the budget, she stated—and this is to quote an article from the Age newspaper:
Ms Glass said she received $6 million, or about one-third, less funding than she requested for 2020–21. She said this could inhibit the number of investigations the body conducted …
‘I sincerely hope this is not a deliberate attempt to undermine my office, but it certainly could look like it,’ she said, adding the ‘appearance of it is very poor.’
Ms Glass said the money she wanted for her office was ‘not to do anything fancy or new, but simply to operate efficiently and effectively’. She said a state Ombudsman should not ‘have to fight year-on-year to be able to do that’.
We know from the annual report and Ms Glass’s comments that the cost of running her office last year was close to $22 million. In spending $22 million last year she incurred deficits in the order of $5 million—$5 million over budget—and the funding that has been allocated this year means that again the office, in delivering its basic functions not only in oversight and providing oversight back to the Parliament as an officer of the Parliament but also in responding to Victorian citizens’ concerns, is not going to meet her requirements to run. Again, the budget is going to be short this year, as it was in the last financial year. This should be put in context because, as I said, we have a budget where the government is throwing an unprecedented amount of money around in the community. Eighty-nine billion dollars is being spent this year. The additional funding that the Ombudsman was seeking—the additional $6 million in total that was being sought—accounts for 0.007 of 1 per cent of the total spend, so that is seven-thousandths of 1 per cent of the total state spend.
So it is not an issue that the government could not afford it; this is a deliberate choice by the government not to provide the resources that the Ombudsman sought and not to provide the resources that IBAC needed. And the question is why, when we are spending a record amount of money, $89 000 million, is the government not willing to provide the $6 million that was sought by the Ombudsman and that was sought by IBAC? You have to go to the issue of what they are investigating.
We know that the Labor Party and the government’s links with the Labor Party—financial links and suggested impropriety—are the subject of the Ombudsman’s investigations. We know that the Labor Party’s links with Operation Sandon have been the subject of IBAC investigations—and just recently we had a member of the government party giving evidence at IBAC. And we are in a situation where the funding is not being provided. The base funding that has been sought is not being provided; the base funding that is needed is not being provided. So when the bill reaches the committee stage it is our intention to move two amendments, to provide additional funding to IBAC, funding of an additional $4.4 million, which will ensure that the funding in the 2020–21 financial year will be equal to the funding provided in the 2019–20 financial year, and an additional funding of $2 million for the Victorian Ombudsman to reflect expenditure which was incurred by that office in the financial year just finished.
This bill has an important function in providing funding for the independent agencies, the independent officers of this Parliament, as well as the Parliament infrastructure itself. But it is not independent, as I said. The bill as drafted is the bill the government wants and is the level of funding the government wants for these independent institutions. It is in the interests of Victorians and frankly in the interests of members of this Parliament that those institutions are appropriately funded, and therefore I would seek the support of other members of the house when we get into the committee to ensure that those offices, the Ombudsman and IBAC, can have the funding they need to properly discharge their duties.
In closing, this bill does fund Parliament. It does fund electorate offices. It does fund all the staff of the Parliament and their individual offices. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all the parliamentary staff here at Parliament House, our chamber officers, the library staff, the staff of Parliamentary Services and of course our own electorate officers for the work that they have done over what has been a very trying year, particularly many officers with their face-to-face interaction with the community, for their work. This is an important bill, and it is a bill that provides functions that deserve to be appropriately funded. I look forward to that occurring by way of amendment later today.
Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (17:03): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020 and to at the outset acknowledge the hard work and the dedication which has been afforded to this place and indeed the Assembly as well as to the institution at large of the Parliament. It should never go without saying that this work happens because of the hard work and dedication of dozens and dozens of people across a range of different teams. This includes the clerks and the attendants. It includes those in Hansard, who work to interpret Oxford commas and where they belong and where they do not belong, and I thank each and every single one of those people who in fact make us read far better than we often sound. I also want to thank everyone who works behind the scenes. In particular in the course of the pandemic it has been necessary to increase and to change the safety and security standards which operate in this place not only to comply with public health directions but also to make sure that this place is setting an example in relation to what good management looks like in the most unforeseen of circumstances. I will go to those parts of the budget and the appropriation which deal with those substantive issues in due course.
We also have to thank members of security and members of catering, those people who are in charge of making sure that our work here is as comfortable and efficient as possible. These are contributions which often go unnoticed but which nonetheless are part and parcel of the work of this Parliament, its tradition, its history and indeed the high standard that it sets for this jurisdiction and others around the country.
When we look to the appropriation itself, it does go, as Mr Rich-Phillips indicated in his initial contribution, to making those payments available to the Parliament for its ongoing operations and to work which includes the integrity, operations and functions of a number of different agencies which operate independently through their statutory remit in, for example, investigating, educating on and preventing matters relating to corruption; investigating complaints of unfairness, mismanagement or other conduct which falls foul of expenses and public standards; and making sure that the Parliament is in a position to investigate matters which are the subject of referral to parliamentary committees. We have a range of departments which sit alongside this work: the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Department of the Legislative Assembly and the Department of the Legislative Council.
I want to address Mr Rich-Phillips’s opening remarks in relation to the $89 billion expenditure which has been outlined in the budget papers for 2020–21 and the argument of relativity, which he appears to have raised in the course of the amendments which have been foreshadowed by the opposition. What we do see in fact, despite Mr Rich-Phillips’s claims to the contrary, is that the appropriation has been escalated for the relevant period and that it has accommodated the requests made by a number of parts of the integrity framework through the budgetary process.
It is fair to say also, and it is correct to say, that at least in the case of the Victorian Ombudsman that office has not received the full amount of expenditure and recurrent funding that it sought to receive. However, it has received an increase. IBAC, as I am advised, has in fact received the appropriation that it asked for in the course of the budgetary process.
Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.
Ms SHING: It is for that reason, Mr Rich-Phillips, that the government will be opposing the two suggested amendments which the opposition will be moving in relation to an additional $4.4 million to be provided to IBAC and an additional $2 million to be provided to the Ombudsman.
Mr Rich-Phillips has quoted the Premier. It is nice to see that Mr Rich-Phillips’s attention did go in fact to the Premier’s public comments as they related to his more than 120 days of media conferences related to the pandemic and to other questions that may have been posed. In a number of instances comments by the IBAC Commissioner, Mr Robert Redlich, were raised in relation to the budget process. I also note that Mr Rich-Phillips read some public correspondence from the Victorian Ombudsman, Ms Deborah Glass, into the record today and the claims of actual or perceived interference—I do not want to paraphrase—and that the failure to provide the full amount as sought would have a deleterious impact on the Victorian Ombudsman’s capacity to investigate matters within her jurisdiction.
I note also Mr Rich-Phillips’s paraphrasing of Mr Redlich’s comments around a static and inadequate budget. Well, this is where again the—
Mr Rich-Phillips: That was a quote.
Ms SHING: I said paraphrasing the comments, so I am happy to say that that was a direct quote. I am not going to give the full context of it, Mr Rich-Phillips, however, because we have limited time available to us. What I do wish to put on the record, however, is that this nature of budgetary allocations is, as Mr Rich-Phillips and those opposite would appreciate, the subject of a budgetary process into which all frameworks and systems within the remit of government funding fall, that in fact it is the subject of an annual process relating to appropriations and relating to forward estimates, which those around this chamber and indeed in the other place would be well acquainted with and indeed which those agencies and organisations across the public service and the sector more broadly are also very familiar with.
The bottom line in relation to the allocation of any appropriations is that decisions have to be made around where and how a government will prioritise the allocation of public money in the discharge of responsibilities, including, relevantly, the way in which we have responded to the pandemic. And that is something which Mr Rich-Phillips has in fact not spent any significant amount of time dealing with in his contribution, preferring, as he did, to wander down the path of red shirts and of an apparent conspiracy which is being run by Mr Rich-Phillips to perhaps invite a conclusion that money was not given in full to the Victorian Ombudsman, and the allegation that money has not been given as asked to IBAC and to the IBAC Commissioner in response to requests, because of the nature of inquiries which are currently underway.
What Mr Rich-Phillips has failed to address is the pandemic response, which forms a significant part of the $89 billion expenditure and which is intended very much to address the hardships being faced across the state as a result of this unprecedented event and which is intended through the investment in infrastructure and through borrowing at record low levels of debt as we know is the case not just in Victoria but globally as economies grapple to offset the damage caused by the pandemic and the downturn in growth across a range of sectors. These are the investments which must be prioritised, but it is not a fair conclusion to reach, as Mr Rich-Phillips might have us believe, that these investments have in fact come at the expense of investments in integrity.
Mr Rich-Phillips referred in his contribution to the parliamentary committee system and to the workload associated with those parliamentary inquiries. I, as can many others around this chamber, appreciate the work of parliamentary inquiries through the committee system is work which is never done, and we have seen a record number of referrals and self-referrals occur to parliamentary committees over this parliamentary term and indeed during the last term. But what is telling in Mr Rich-Phillips’s contribution is that neither of the amendments being proposed by the opposition are intended to address funding to the Department of Parliamentary Services, and therefore it is somewhat ironic that that is in fact a point being made by the opposition when it is not backed up by any sort of substantive amendment.
We need to make sure also that we are not casting aspersions on the way in which the integrity agencies are discharging their functions and responsibilities within the statutory framework, and in particular noting the Ombudsman’s activities as they relate to the Liberal Party and to various representatives of that political party as well. So there is no fear or favour in the way in which the Ombudsman or IBAC undertake their duties, and that is exactly as it should be. Funding questions and funding conclusions through the budgetary process ought not to be construed as political interference through financial and budgetary decisions, and indeed for Mr Rich-Phillips to suggest otherwise is not just a stretch, it is in fact fatuous and bears no relation to the reality of funding which has occurred to these agencies in the past or indeed which has been allocated throughout the budgetary process in recent weeks.
I want to touch also on the work being undertaken by this Parliament through increasing access to technology and to public broadcasting, which is part of the appropriation for this bill and which will enable better and more ready access, including remotely, to people who wish to process and access on-demand broadcasting services.
We will also see the Parliament’s catering arm be better in a position through this appropriation to continue to provide the hundreds of thousands of meals which have been prepared in our parliamentary kitchens and delivered to charitable organisations, making a world of difference to people in need throughout the course of the pandemic. We know that more than 800 000 meals have been prepared in our kitchens here, and alongside partnerships with the Salvation Army and local organisations these meals have been distributed—alongside the contributions of so many other community organisations, including the Sikh Volunteers, I might add, who have made sure that Victorians have not gone without in circumstances where that was a very real risk, and indeed a heightened risk, because of the nature of the pandemic and the vulnerabilities being experienced by so many.
We are also looking to make sure that MPs and electorate officers, who are regulated through the Department of Parliamentary Services, receive an increase in budget to accommodate the increases in voter counts. This is another important part of making sure that that work within electorate offices keeps up with the pace of demand. I would also like, along with Mr Rich-Phillips, to extend thanks and gratitude to electorate officers all over the state, who have worked this year in extraordinarily difficult and unforeseen circumstances—remotely and often with limited technology for our regional and rural electorate office staff—to make sure that connections to community have been maintained in the best possible ways and that assistance, information, resources and support have been accessible for those who have needed them most.
We are making sure in the course of this appropriation that we can also continue with the work to prevent and to minimise the risk of transmission of coronavirus. We know that COVID-19 has cut a swathe through the state and in fact that business, industry, community organisations, workplaces, families and individuals are continuing to grapple with the new world order as it applies under COVID normal. We have weathered an exceptional, extraordinary and devastating storm in the course of this year, and as we introduce QR codes and as we introduce temperature screening and electronic sign-ins across the state, we are determined to make sure that Parliament continues to uphold standards, as is the case and as the standards apply for business and for industry.
To something a little more antique, Parliament House’s restoration works also need to continue, and the long history of Parliament as an institution of the two buildings which were joined together means that we have an almost equal history of scaffolding around various parts of the building. We have seen at least for the last few years stonemasons and other staff working, dedicating the craft and expertise that they bring to their work to making sure that the building can continue to be restored and that the historic stone facade, which we are looking forward to seeing once that scaffolding comes down, can shine across Spring Street and down Bourke Street with the cultural significance that it has always brought to the skyline in Victoria.
We do commend this bill to the house. We note with thanks the contributions of individuals, organisations and associations who work so hard to uphold integrity, consistency and the reputation of this place. We also indicate that we will not be supporting the opposition’s amendments as proposed by Mr Rich-Phillips in his contribution.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:19): I too rise to speak to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020 and pick up Mr Rich-Phillips’s comments about IBAC and the Ombudsman being short-changed in this budget. It does beggar belief, when the government are talking about the biggest amount of expenditure this state has ever seen, that they short-change both IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office. You just wonder what they are looking to hide here.
It has been a tough year, it has been a very tough year—a tough year particularly for this Parliament with COVID-19 and the effects right through Victoria as a result of the failure of hotel quarantine and the impact it has had right across Victorian business and indeed this Parliament. There have been changes to sitting dates, there have been changes to sitting arrangements, and from up here in the car park you get a pretty good view of what is happening in the parliamentary chamber here in the upper house. I have never sat at the very top level at the MCG, but I kind of know how it feels, being up here during a parliamentary sitting day. There has been a diverse crossbench, there have been changes of ministers, there has been a change of President, there has been a change of Government Whip and there has been a change of members in this place. And it has made it very, very challenging for Andrew Young and Anne and the whole team in terms of managing the daily operations of this place and between sitting weeks as well.
I pay tribute to the parliamentary staff for the work they have done in managing what has been an extraordinary year in terms of the parliamentary sitting. Particularly I pay tribute to Greg Mills and his team. For the attendants to be able to manage the dynamics of this chamber and the change of arrangements, it has been a remarkable job. I pay tribute to them, as I do to the units of the Department of Parliamentary Services, including Hansard, properties, security, budgets and risk, and particularly IT in trying to manage all the changes across our system as well. We have had people working from home and trying to manage that and everyone dialling into the system at the same time. It is not quite the old dial-up that we were used to many years ago, but it must put on some pressure. To Chris Prasad and the team at IT, I say thank you. Thank you for the extraordinary work that you have done and for being available to us for so long.
It is not easy to run a parliamentary chamber here with the diversity of members and the diversity of needs and trying to manage all of those at different times of the day and evening, as they either work from home or their electorate offices. Mentioning my electorate office—
Mr Gepp: Some more needy than others.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Yes, Mr Gepp. I pick up your interjection. Some are more needy than others, particularly when it comes to a Luddite like me trying to manage the IT system. Thank goodness for control-alt-delete.
Speaking of electorate offices, can I pay a particular tribute to my team. Those who have had to change their work schedule, work from home from time to time, not seeing their colleagues at work from time to time, participating in so many Zoom meetings. Zoom, Zoom, Zoom—I feel like they were probably in a Mazda ad at some point. There were so many Zoom meetings. It was tough for them. To Nadine, to Phil, to Jacky, to Jen, to Nick and to Goldy, I say thank you. Thank you for your capacity, your energy, your work, your commitment, your capacity to work from home but get the job done and maintain the relationships that we so eagerly strive for with our constituents. For the amount of work they did, which I think would be above and beyond in terms of the hours they worked trying to get everything done, I pay tribute to my electorate office team.
This parliamentary appropriation bill, which will no doubt pass today, with the support of this chamber for Mr Rich-Phillips’s amendments to give appropriate funding to IBAC and to the Ombudsman, is worthy of due consideration by this chamber, and I commend it to the house.
Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (17:23): I too rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. I was wondering where my colleague Ms Shing was going when she completed her contribution with a reference to antiques in the Parliament. I looked straight at Mr Finn, and I thought: how did he get into this conversation? But he manages to find his way into most conversations.
Like everybody, I too want to pay my thanks in regard to the staff of the Parliament, who do a wonderful job. I think we all share in that sentiment in very, very difficult and trying times, and I am sure they are particularly glad that we are debating this bill and that there will be support across the chamber for this appropriation bill, because of course it will make sure that some money flows and people can continue to be paid. It is a very important bill that the Parliament is dealing with.
All of those staff—be it the clerks, the table office, the library, the committee staff—play such a very, very important role. It takes a lot of them to keep us functioning, and it has taken a heck of a lot, I am sure, this year in particular, given the unusual circumstances of COVID-19, for them to be able to develop the processes and systems to ensure that we were able to continue to work and deal with the important business of the Parliament during this year.
Like every speaker before me, I would also like to send out a big thanks to everybody’s electorate office staff, who really have done it very, very tough this year. They have all had to work offsite of course and in difficult situations—probably aided by one small advantage, and that is that they have not had to see the member every day when it is not a sitting day. So they have not had to deal with us. But they have done a mighty, mighty job. Regardless of who they work for, they would have had many, many constituents ringing, emailing and reaching out, during what has been an exceptionally tough year, and maintained those contacts with constituents and importantly some of the other key groups that have performed also so admirably through this year—people like our local governments, our councils, who have done a lot of work certainly up in my neck of the woods in Northern Victoria. The amount of work that the various shires have done during the course of this year to make sure that people in their catchment have had the services and support that they have needed during this year has been absolutely marvellous. So I too pay tribute to all of the electorate office staff right across the board, and to my team in particular I want to say a big thank you.
I share the electorate of course with the Deputy President and with others. It is the biggest electorate in this state, and I can assure you that just in the last 12 months in one corner of our electorate we have had many people dealing with drought and all of the associated issues with drought and in the other corner bushfires. We quickly forget the devastation felt in the north-east of my electorate and of course down in Gippsland throughout the latter course of 2019 and the early weeks of 2020. We have had it all, and we spun out of those catastrophes straight into COVID-19, so many in our electorate have been doing it tough for most of the past 12 to 14 months, and our electorate office staff have done a mighty, mighty job over that period of time, particularly in Northern Victoria, reaching out to our communities and being available for our communities to reach in to us.
I have heard from both Mr Rich-Phillips and Mr Ondarchie the conspiracy theories—the grassy knoll theories—that pervade their thinking around the funding of certain organisations in this budget. I do not know where they come up with these sorts of things, but they seem to be able to go to these dark places. One can only imagine that there is some sort of familiarity with these places to be able to draw on them so quickly in these sorts of debates.
I will talk more I think on Thursday when I get the opportunity to talk on appropriations for the whole of government. I will be a bit more expansive on the finer points of the budget. But suffice to say, not everyone or everything is funded to the level that everyone or everything would like in any budget. This budget has been particularly challenging because it is dealing with the most unusual set of circumstances. We have seen similar budgets handed down at the federal level and in other jurisdictions in attempts to try to deal with what has been the craziest year certainly of my lifetime, and I am sure that is the case for many people in this chamber.
This appropriation bill appropriates funds for core parliamentary services, as I mentioned earlier, provided by the Department of Parliamentary Services, the Department of the Legislative Assembly and the Department of the Legislative Council.
Mr Ondarchie interjected.
Mr GEPP: The bill also appropriates funds for important integrity institutions, Mr Ondarchie, such as the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the parliamentary committee system.
Can I say, I did listen to Mr Rich-Phillips’s contribution, and I draw on the very salient point that my friend and colleague Ms Shing made earlier. That is that despite the carping from Mr Rich-Phillips about parliamentary services and the funding thereof, when he talked about the amendments that he was going to move there was no mention of them. That is pretty typical of what we hear, I think, from the opposition. They like to cast the lure out to see if there are any nibbles in the pond, to see if anybody outside of this place is going to bite—will they latch onto that bit of the contribution?—and when that does not work, then they flip to Mr Ondarchie and Mr Ondarchie’s conspiracy theories. When you combine all of those together, they go on a fishing expedition. But when they had the opportunity to do something by way of amendment, they chose not to. They chose to go down a different path. I understand—well, I think I understand—where they are coming from, but as I said it is not a place that I am necessarily familiar with, in terms of grassy knolls and the like. But I will leave that up to them. It must be a product of being in opposition. That must be what one does.
Importantly, what this bill will also do is, as my friend and colleague Ms Shing identified, fund the ongoing funding to the charity meals program. This has been a wonderful program during the course of 2020. At this point I want to congratulate the Speaker of the lower house and a former President of the upper house, Minister Leane, for their work, particularly in terms of that initiative. Not only were they able to keep people employed in the kitchen areas and the hospitality areas of the Parliament when many, many workers right across this state and indeed the country were facing a very bleak period, but through their initiative and work they pulled together this charity meals program. It has been a wonderful initiative, and this appropriation bill will continue to provide funding to that program. Not only has it had the benefit of retaining those people in work during this difficult period, but of course the wonderful spin-off in that has been the food that has been provided to those in our community—particularly through the Salvation Army, but other community groups also—to ensure that our homeless and vulnerable people in our community were fed during that difficult time, and we will continue to do that.
Ms Shing also talked about the upgrade to chamber technology, and perhaps many would argue that that is probably not the only upgrade this chamber could do with. Fortunately, every four years people get the opportunity to refresh the chamber. They push control alt delete, but they also get to hit the refresh button as well. I do not know if anybody is watching, but please tell me that the presence of the broadcast is not so we can just sit in our offices and watch each other. I am sure it is not. I am sure there are people that listen. It is an important thing. It is important that people are able to switch on, and if they choose to participate in democracy through the broadcast and see what people are saying in real time, then it is an important initiative. I am very supportive of technology.
Mr Finn interjected.
Mr GEPP: I will come back to antiques in a minute. I am very supportive of us investing in better technology for this chamber to enable greater participation in our democracy. There will be some small increase to electorate office and communication budgets. There will be some modest improvements there as well as some upgrades through this bill to safety and security for our electorate offices. And of course that will include some funding to ensure that new COVID-19 safety standards are applied in our offices and allow for equipment upgrades to facilitate remote working arrangements.
Ms Shing did touch on the restoration work that is going ahead on this building. That is important work because when everybody in this chamber has come and gone there will be other people that sit in this place long after all of us have tapped the mat—although I am not sure; gee, Mr Finn has been here a very long time. You may well be the exception to the rule, Mr Finn. But as for the rest of us, when we have come and gone, wonderful buildings such as this are the beacon for our democracy in this state. They are important buildings. On that note I can say that I reject Mr Rich-Phillips’s amendments and I commend the bill to the house.
Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:38): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. This is an important bill. It appropriates funds not only for the Parliament but most importantly for the independent officers, who have got such an important scrutiny role and oversight role. The parliamentary budget is critical, but the Victorian Inspectorate, the Auditor-General, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and the Ombudsman are also funded through this budgetary allocation. It is to those that I wish to direct my attention. Mr Rich-Phillips has covered the more general matters.
The opposition is very concerned about the activities of the Victorian state government at the moment, the Andrews Labor government, in its attack on independent institutions—its attack on the Ombudsman and its attack on IBAC while both of these bodies are undertaking significant work in terms of inquiries that are uncomfortable for the state government. They are investigating matters which attack the state government’s probity and the state government’s position in terms of planning matters and in terms of the Labor Party itself. All of these inquiries by independent officers have been initiated in a way that is unpleasant for the Labor Party and for Daniel Andrews in particular. The result of that is that the government have chosen to cut their budget, to slice hard into their budget, and they have done this to penalise them, to punish them for holding the government to account, for actually scrutinising the government in an independent manner.
I say that the suggested amendments that the opposition is moving here today in committee will seek to restore some of that money that Daniel Andrews and his troop have cut from the independent officers. I say this is a very important set of amendments. The $2 million that the opposition proposes to put back in for the Ombudsman will make sure that Deborah Glass in that role—that critical role, that independent role of the Ombudsman—is in a position to undertake the inquiries that are required and that her office is not crimped, her office is not controlled and brought into line by the nasty decision of the government to cut funding to that office when it is mid-flight with a number of key inquiries. The same goes for IBAC. It is very clear when you look at the budget figures that there is a cut of $4.4 million, and that money will be restored if the opposition’s suggested amendments are accepted by the government and by the chamber.
I would hope that the government would rethink its fundamentally anti-democratic stance, its attack on independent scrutiny and independent institutions. I would hope that it would rethink it in this chamber. When the suggested amendments are moved by Mr Rich-Phillips on behalf of the opposition, we would hope that the crossbench would see that this chamber’s role is as a house of scrutiny, a house of review, a house which actually has the time and capacity to look at bills in detail, and in this case support a series of suggested amendments which would protect those independent institutions and restore the money that is required to enable them to do the work that is required to hold the government to account. I would hope each and every one of the crossbenchers would see the absolute importance of this chamber, sending a very clear signal, standing up for the independent officers, standing up for the scrutiny that is needed, standing up against government cuts to the independent officers that are so important in maintaining a clean system, keeping corruption under control and making sure that administrative and other mistakes that are properly investigated by the Ombudsman are actually corrected.
The work that the Ombudsman is doing is very important. The work that IBAC is doing is equally very significant. We have heard story after story come out of IBAC, and the opposition believes that this $4.4 million should be put back into the budget so that there is no doubt that IBAC is able to do the work that is required.
I make the point that in a very unusual pattern IBAC has placed its concerns and its issues up on its website so anyone in the community can go and read that it is in a position where it needs that additional funding. You can see in the schedule to this bill what is required there. Equally, the report by the Ombudsman to this Parliament tabled today—tabled initially last week but formally today in the chamber—makes it very, very clear that in fact the money that she needs to do the work as an independent ombudsman is not there at the moment and that money should be there.
I say to each member of the Labor Party over there and to each member of the crossbench: think about what is important here. What is important is the independent scrutiny of governments, holding governments to account. Governments spend an enormous amount of taxpayers money. We need to make sure that this is done in a clean way, that it is done in a way that is beyond reproach, where corruption is not involved, and it clearly is the case that we have seen corruption in a number of levels of government. In my own portfolio of transport infrastructure we have seen from that series of hearings that Mr Pinder, the former CEO of V/Line, was clearly corrupt to his bootstraps, and that has been exposed. We have seen—
Mr Finn interjected.
Mr DAVIS: He should be in jail, and he may well be in jail. My view is that the work that has been done by IBAC on exposing the corruption in the rail sector, in the transport sector in Victoria is absolutely critical. Think about it. Think about what is involved here. We have had a series of cleaning contracts at Metro Trains—government money that has been involved in controlling those contracts at Metro Trains. We hear about the sprinkles and we hear about the pay-offs and the crooked arrangements that have been there. You know, the COVID issue comes along, and the offer is there: ‘We’ll pump up the money to Metro Trains cleaning contractors, and over here at V/Line we’ll pump up the money for the V/Line cleaning contracts as well’. This is out-and-out corruption, pure and simple.
The IBAC is very pushed with the amount of work it has got at the moment. I am singling out this area because that is my portfolio area and saying that that area of transport and transport infrastructure is quite critical. I want to say something about V/Line in particular—a government agency, a government statutory authority. At V/Line the board was turned over by Ms Jacinta Allan, the then Minister for Public Transport and now Minister for Transport Infrastructure. From 2016 onwards she cleaned the board out and put all of her own people in; everyone was turned over. Since 2016 the board has been brand new, and the board has not been able to prevent this corruption occurring. It has allowed Jacinta Allan’s hand-picked CEO—corrupt, crooked, crooked to the core, this CEO—to use public money to aggrandise himself, to build his house, to do all sorts of things, these amazing ruses to actually shift public money into the pockets of corrupt people around him.
What has the board of V/Line done? They have done nothing. They have not been up to it, at a minimum. I do not know whether they are in on it. I do not know whether they are in on it up to their necks—whether any of them are taking money. I do not know the answer to that, but I do know that at a minimum they were so incompetent that they allowed this corruption to occur under their watch. And it was not as though they did not have a wake-up call. Operation Lansdowne by IBAC was a wake-up call that pointed to corruption in the transport industry and pointed to corruption in contracts at V/Line. And what has the board done? They have allowed it to continue. I mean, this is crooked to the core. Why did the board not act and put in place proper mechanisms to stop public money being stolen by these crooked individuals? Why? Jacinta Allan needs to answer that. She was the minister, and then she put in her own hand-picked board chair, the then head of Public Transport Victoria, Jeroen Weimar. I reckon he is in it up to his neck. I reckon he is crooked; I reckon he is corrupt. He was put in as a special. He was not only the head of PTV but put in as board chair of V/Line.
We said at the time there was a clear conflict of interest. Of course there is a clear conflict of interest. You have got an independent board with statutory duties, you have got an officer over here who has got duties to the department and to PTV, which is the funder of V/Line. So you have got a crooked organisation, an organisation that has got a history with Lansdowne, known to be corrupt, and you put in a senior public servant as board chair, and the corruption continues—and it gets worse. And now Jeroen Weimar has been made head of contact tracing. Well, I understand he left PTV and the department under a cloud, but either way he should not have been in that role. He should not have been in that conflicted role where he was both the funder at PTV and the board chair of the independent statutory authority. At a minimum he failed to stop the corruption. It happened under his watch. He has not been asked to explain, and he should be. I do not think his position is tenable into the future; I do not think his position is tenable at all. I think he is up to his collywobbles in it, and I think he should be pulled aside and flipped out.
But I say on this: this is about the independent officers. We need to make sure that the Ombudsman can do her work and that the IBAC can do its work, and if we do not fund them properly, they cannot. I will say there is only one reason to vote against these suggested amendments, and that is because you want to be part of a thing with the government, with the Labor government, with Daniel Andrews’s government, to nobble the Ombudsman and to nobble the IBAC.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (17:50): I will probably have trouble following that. I rise to speak on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. My colleague, Mr Quilty, will cover some key aspects of the bill that have concerned the Liberal Democrats, but I would like to add a few brief comments of my own. Firstly, I would like to thank the parliamentary staff who have done such a wonderful job this year under trying circumstances with changes to our work arrangements. I would also like to thank my own staff and all the electorate officers that work for MPs. I know that not only have they had to deal with very trying work circumstances with working from home and loneliness and this sort of thing but many of the calls coming into our offices and the issues that constituents have had to get help with have been very emotional and serious and very distressing in some circumstances. I think that they deserve some thanks from all Victorians for the work that they do in connecting constituents with Parliament.
I would also like to highlight the work of the parliamentary committees, which have continued their important work while managing the challenge of having witnesses provide testimony remotely. These committees are one of the most important functions of our Parliament, where diverse members can thrash out important issues that affect Victorians, and I have had the privilege of being involved in a number of these inquiries. I often question whether taxpayers are getting good value for money from government spending, but this does not apply to Parliament staff and particularly the staff of the committees, who have done a wonderful job in my opinion.
This bill also funds, as has been pointed out, Victoria’s integrity agencies: the Victorian Ombudsman’s office, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, the Victorian Inspectorate and the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office. It also funds the Parliamentary Budget Office, which is a great asset to this Parliament, especially for members of the crossbench, who do not always have access to the resources required to develop and inform policies introduced for further debate in this place. My colleague, Tim Quilty, and I have used their services to come up with some very interesting research on a number of topics.
While all of these are important agencies, IBAC and the Victorian Ombudsman have been working hard and doing very important work in recent years. Democracies have been challenged this year. Many people have lost faith in the integrity of governments, and without these agencies being appropriately funded and well supported, allegations of corruption or malfeasance would be impossible to refute. The work being conducted by the Ombudsman’s office includes an investigation into allegations of branch stacking, misconduct and other matters in collaboration with IBAC. This investigation will look into allegations of serious misconduct and corruption involving Victorian public officers. I am sure we can all agree that a swift resolution to this matter will benefit the function of this Parliament, and my fellow representative in the South Eastern Metropolitan Region Mr Somyurek can resume his duties after it has finished. I am sure we all look forward to his contributions next year.
The Ombudsman’s office has also received more than 550 complaints about financial grants to support small business during the pandemic, which it is investigating. These grants are managed by the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions. Given the large volume of complaints, the Ombudsman has decided to investigate to see if the department has made errors. This may allow the Ombudsman to assist the department in improving its practices and procedures for receiving and managing applications for grants. This was a predictable aspect that was internationally highlighted at the start of the pandemic, and it should come as no surprise that with so much taxpayers money being spent at the moment the opportunities for corruption have increased exponentially.
With programs rapidly established by a public service working remotely there has never been a more important time for appropriate scrutiny and oversight. IBAC has already been investigating investigations of serious corruption involving contracts related to cleaning in Victoria’s public transport sector, as other members have highlighted. Without appropriate resourcing, we could miss allegations of corruption.
The Ombudsman is currently also investigating the treatment of public housing tenants in lockdown. The investigation is specifically into the treatment of public housing tenants at 33 Alfred Street, North Melbourne. These residents were placed into hard lockdown for nearly a fortnight due to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation is intending to respond to the immediate concerns of residents and advocates, emphasising the need for access to medical supplies, fresh air, exercise or other everyday needs. It will also explore the broader issue of how to protect people’s human rights when they are detained in lockdown, an issue very dear to my heart. I think that it is important to point out that with a speedy resolution to this investigation—God forbid that we have more outbreaks in Melbourne—with this sort of information we can learn from what has happened during the lockdowns, and that will be absolutely essential in future responses to outbreaks.
I will not mention every investigation or inquiry that is currently being conducted, but suffice to say that this year has created additional demand for the services of this office. In the quarterly highlight published by IBAC the CEO, Marlo Baragwanath, highlighted the additional risk of corruption during a crisis, stating, and I will quote:
Significant funding and other measures are being progressively announced and implemented by all levels of government in response to the pandemic, in addition to funding committed for bushfire recovery. Experience tells us that changes to the way government services are delivered during times of crisis can create or heighten misconduct and corruption risks.
The need to respond in a timely manner, coupled with remote work arrangements and pressing demands, present new opportunities and risks for corruption.
I could not agree more. As my colleague, Mr Quilty, has spoken about many times and will likely talk about again, the Liberal Democrats introduced a motion earlier this year, which was supported by this house, to implement the recommendations of the 2018 inquiry into IBAC. It is unlikely that you will hear me call for more government funding very often during my time here, but when it comes to funding for our integrity agencies the taxpayers get good value for money. Government needs to be accountable to the people, and not just at election time. It has taken some time, but I am pleased that the government has now committed to implementing all of the recommendations, in addition to the recommendations from the recent Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. While this commitment from the government is a good one and will improve the functioning of Victoria Police and hopefully restore some confidence in the police, I am concerned that the government has not adequately funded the Ombudsman’s office and IBAC in this bill. This is not the time to short-change our integrity bodies. While the Liberal Democrats will always support the efficient operation of government agencies, concerns have been raised by both of these agencies that they do not have the resources to conduct the work that we expect of them.
The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the suggested amendments proposed by the opposition. Given the vast sums of money being spent in this budget, they are very reasonable and modest additions. I believe the government should restore this funding to an appropriate level. The scrutiny of matters related to the pandemic response should not be unnecessarily delayed.
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (17:58): I will be brief. This year’s budget will cost Victorians more than any previous budget. Over the next year government will expand by almost a full quarter and will spend $85 billion, or $34 750 per household. Despite this, the government has starved our anti-corruption bodies of funding. The Victorian Ombudsman’s office has been allocated $2 million less than it spent last year. Ombudsman Deborah Glass, whose job is to investigate government misbehaviour, says this certainly looks like an attempt to undermine her office. The Ombudsman is the office that investigates things like branch stacking, treatment of public housing tenants in lockdown and the dispensation of grants programs. One can only imagine why this government would want to undermine such investigations. Ombudsman Glass said she sometimes feels that ‘governments fund their ombudsman as little as they can get away with’. She is talking about a history of underfunding from both Labor and Liberal governments. This is a pattern of behaviour. Those in power create anti-corruption bodies to give the appearance of integrity but do everything they can to make those organisations ineffective.
The Ombudsman is not the only anti-corruption office this government is trying to suffocate. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission has also noted that it does not have the resources to investigate the claims of corruption and government misbehaviour put before it. Earlier this year this house passed the Liberal Democrats motion demanding an increase in IBAC funding not only so it could properly investigate political corruption but to expand the areas it could investigate to include reports of police corruption as well. This government not only has ignored the will of this house and refused to expand funding but has set itself on depriving IBAC of these funds that it needs to fulfil its current obligations. Casey council is not the only council that John Woodman has been involved in. I am told there are outstanding issues requiring investigation in Melton, for example, and John Woodman is not the only one who is apparently treating council development processes as their own personal cash machine. The number of councils needing investigation urgently far exceeds the funds available.
I am sure it is clear to everybody in this house that I am not a fan of increased government spending, but I make an exception when it comes to funding the integrity agencies. Corruption is a cancer that eats at the fabric of our society. While this could be improved by reducing the level of government regulation that in turn creates the opportunities for corruption to be so profitable by taking the sugar off the table, as long as we have these opportunities in place for corruption we must have the anti-corruption bodies to fight it. Robert Redlich, the IBAC Commissioner, highlighted critical underfunding back in July and said that resource shortages would hamper IBAC’s ability to complete a growing number of investigations. One might wonder why the list is growing.
Let us put this into perspective. Our Ombudsman is asking for $2 million in additional funding. This government is to spend $232 million every day over the next year. That is $9.7 million every hour. The $2 million of funding the Ombudsman needs represents only 12 minutes of Victorian government spending, yet our government says we cannot afford it. Earlier this year the Treasurer said that he had found $4 billion of government waste that could be used for other purposes. According to our Treasurer our government was wasting 200 times the amount needed to fund the Ombudsman, but he still cannot find the money to fund it. At the time, I asked the Treasurer where these savings had been found, and I was told I would have to wait for the budget to find out. Now we know at least where $2 million of the savings have come from, and we know that this government sees integrity as a waste of time and money.
I will not accept that there is no room in the budget to fund integrity bodies. This government claims that taxpayers can afford record expenditure but cannot afford the integrity bodies to ensure the spending is honest. Well, I say if you cannot afford to ensure your grants programs are not just another sports rort debacle, then you cannot afford your grants programs. And the same goes for the rest of government expenditure. If you cannot afford to show that it is above board, you cannot afford it. It is as simple as that. The Liberal Democrats are proud to stand against corruption and to demand adequate funding for integrity bodies before funding is directed elsewhere.
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (18:03): I am pleased to rise to the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. Before I move on to some of the other aspects, I certainly would just like to thank everybody for what an extraordinary year this has been. I know that for our community it has been tough. I know that for many of us in this chamber it has been tough. We have had to change the way we work, and we have had to do things very differently. Our staff have had to do things very differently, and they have had to deal with a lot of new things. This has been an extraordinary learning curve I think for our staff. They have learned to work very differently but to do it very effectively. And in this Parliament, which has been closed to the public, this beautiful building that has been closed to the public for most of this year—
Mr Finn: Closed to us for a fair while too.
Ms PATTEN: Well, Mr Finn, I do not feel like I have missed a moment with you this year. I feel like we have spent plenty of time, probably enough time, together, but—
Mr Finn: Probably more than enough.
Ms PATTEN: More than enough. We can both agree that we will be happy when we have spent some time apart again, I suspect. But apart from that I think in fact it has been a very rare day that we have not sat in the chamber, and our staff here have made that possible. I think that has been extraordinary—even working in team A and team B to ensure that we can operate this Parliament as safely as possible. I really feel that we did do that. For most of us we were in here for all of the sitting days that were on the schedule, but this meant some extraordinary creative thinking and lateral thinking from the staff of this Parliament, and they have done that extraordinarily.
I look at my work in the committees. We have undertaken probably more public hearings than we would have in other years. We have enabled the public to share in that. It might have been that in another time for homelessness, for example, we might have travelled to Finland to see how they solved homelessness. But this time we brought Finland to Victoria. We were able to share the conversations that we could have with the Finns, with people from around the world, via our public hearings that the committee held, and the public could play a part in that. I think the way that the Parliament has enabled us to engage with the public during this time has been very different and something I hope that we do not lose once COVID has passed. I hope that many of the things that we have done well we continue to do.
I am still waiting to see a new website for the Parliament, but I understand yet again that it is on its way, almost there. But certainly the technology and the way that we have been able to work has really been able to be escalated incredibly quickly, so I would particularly like to thank everyone who has made that possible, from the IT crew through to Greg and his team here, to all of the clerks and all of the staff in the table office, who have managed to provide us with the information that we normally would have received face to face in electronic ways. I especially would like to recognise the committees and the committee staff. Many of them have been working from their homes since March. They have almost been under house arrest since March, and I think that has been incredibly tough. So I am hoping they all get a very good break come next week or certainly in January and have some really good time when they can at least get out of their homes and travel around the state and around the country. I would also like to thank my own electorate staff. For not a day did they miss a beat in responding to emails, in working hard, sometimes from the electorate office but more often from home, so I thank them all.
I noted Mr Rich-Phillips at the start of his remarks talked about the appropriation for Parliament and that we are in the same position that we were in 12 months ago. We have come to the realisation that, no, we have not funded the Parliament and particularly the Legislative Council to the degree that it is required. And there is a scrambling in these last few days and few weeks leading up to this debate where that funding is found, where problems are solved, and as I understand today we certainly had a considerable shortfall for the Council and particularly for Council committees. I appreciate the Speaker in the other house and certainly I appreciate the President and the work of Parliamentary Services to enable some fast action in shuffling funds to ensure that the Council and the Council’s committees can operate properly for the next six months. I hope that in the May budget we will be able to ensure that this does not happen again and that there is solid, continuous funding and recognition that this is a house of review.
This is a house whose committee processes are incredibly important. This is a house where the committees process and the committees have resulted in policy change and have resulted in real change that affects people’s lives, and I know many of us who are part of committees understand the importance of that work and, outside this velvet chamber, the collaborative and often consensual approach that we take to problem-solving in that committee process. It is something that I think the community does not see enough, although I think through COVID it has managed to see a lot more of that. I certainly am pleased to see that my concerns about the shortfalls in our budgets have been amended. However, this is something that we need to maintain, and this is something that I will be seeking absolute assurances on—that we know that this Parliament is funded and funded well.
That goes to the other point of this appropriation bill, which is about the other organisations that are the conscience of government. As I said, this is the house of review, and this is where we provide that conscience to the government—the Parliament is not the government. And then we see independent organisations like IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office asking for more money, and it is this bizarre situation where you have got people who are providing that oversight of government behaviour, of government actions, of us in this chamber, and we are deciding if they get paid; we are deciding what sort of funding they will have. I thank the Treasurer’s office. I have had numerous conversations with them over the last few weeks, and they have provided me with, I think, adequate assurance that for the time being, until we get to the next budget in May, IBAC and the Ombudsman’s office will be funded appropriately, will be funded as they desire and in their way.
But that raises the important point that the Parliament is not the government. IBAC and the Ombudsman are the oversight of government, yet government decides how they are funded. I would like to see that change. I think it is time for us to look at an independent committee, maybe a parliamentary committee, that looks at how we fund the Parliament and what we fund the Parliament for, because I can imagine a day when the Parliament may decide that the parliamentary committees do not need funding. Now, it would be difficult in the current make-up of this Parliament for that type of decision to pass, but there may be a time in the future when governments may not want this Parliament to run as effectively and as efficiently as it does; they may not want it to. So they may reduce that funding, and it would be up to the government and the executive to make that decision. The government and the executive make that decision about IBAC, about the Ombudsman and about this very chamber. Now, I see that in other jurisdictions that is not the case. If you look at Canada, if you look at Scotland, if you look at the UK, there is independent review of the funding of the independent bodies that provide that scrutiny of government. It is something that I will continue to pursue.
In saying that and in finishing, I believe that this is not perfect, but we have scrambled together to find the right funding for this chamber, for this Council, which I am very pleased about—although I believe it needs more, and I will be campaigning and working on that over the coming months leading up to the next budget. The same goes for IBAC and the Ombudsman. I have been given in writing assurances from the Treasurer that both of those organisations will get the funding that they want, and we can reassess and we can work on this to ensure that this happens in May.
I have always said that when I come into this house I am here to push Reason’s policies and the platform that I was elected on. I am not the government, and I am not the opposition either—I am not an opposition. I am here to provide scrutiny, to hold the government to account, but also to advocate for my community and advocate for the platform that I was elected on. So quite often I feel troubled about amending government bills such as this.
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:15): I rise to speak to the appropriation bill that provides the authority for payments to deliver the 2020–21 budget. Firstly, I am delighted to announce the announcements for around 30 schools in my electorate for upgrades or for new schools which are much needed. I am also delighted to see the announcements for the four hospitals in Western Metropolitan Region.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Dr Cumming, I think you are speaking on the wrong bill.
Dr CUMMING: The appropriation bill?
The PRESIDENT: No, the Parliament one. Do you want to speak to it or not?
Dr CUMMING: No, not really, but to the appropriation bill, the big one.
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:16): We can look forward to that contribution later in the week.
Mr Finn: I may not sleep tonight in anticipation!
Ms PULFORD: Or the night after, Mr Finn. I think we all look forward to debate on the budget over the course of this week and in particular on Thursday. It is always an opportunity for members to talk about the impact of the budget on individuals, groups and communities that they are involved in and that they work with in terms of the decisions that are made through the budget process and what that means for Victorians as an annual expression of the ambitions of the government. And whilst there are many things that do not change from year to year, this year has been, as many members have remarked during this debate, remarkable, and there is a suitably significant budget response to the circumstances we find ourselves in.
But it is with pleasure that I rise to join the debate on the Appropriation (Parliament 2020–2021) Bill 2020. This is—as members have taken the opportunity to do—an appropriate time and place to share some reflections on the way the Parliament has responded to the extraordinary circumstances that have presented themselves during the course of this year. The Parliament is an extraordinary guardian of traditions in so many respects, but the community, and indeed members and staff, expect ongoing modernisation of systems to keep up with the times, and there have been questions posed this year about sitting remotely, about managing absences for members but allowing participation while still continuing to uphold the traditions of the place and to respectfully work within the standing orders of the place.
So I take this opportunity to thank the members of the crossbench and the members of the opposition for the considered and collaborative way in which the orderly running of the house in a COVID-safe way has been able to be managed. I particularly take the opportunity to thank the clerks, our attendants, the security guards here and people at the Department of Parliamentary Services in all the departments and divisions. We have seen even the simple act of going to get a takeaway coffee in this place has somewhat changed now, with safe routes in and out of our favourite haunts in the building, and of course I find myself taking photographs and sending them to Hansard rather than transmitting notes.
There has not been a single person in the Parliament’s workforce that has not had their life and their work impacted. Of course the Presiding Officers—President, you; your predecessor, Mr Leane; and the Speaker in the other place, Mr Brooks—have all provided important leadership, as have those in the Department of Parliamentary Services and of course our clerks, who have assisted and innovated to ensure that the Parliament has still been able to perform its important scrutiny role and indeed on a number of occasions to very quickly consider legislation that has been essential to support the effective public health response and to provide a legal framework for that to be as successful as it is. And so I think that when we say all Victorians owe and are owed a great vote of thanks for their efforts in what is now a globally notable response to defeating a second wave, through their work each member of the staff at the Parliament have played a part in supporting the framework that has enabled that success to be achieved by the Victorian community. Thank you to each and every person who has been involved in that.
There are I believe a couple of amendments that the opposition are keen to pursue. They will have the opportunity to do that in the committee stage—again an opportunity for members to participate in that consideration as part of what is the annual tradition of the state tax bill, the parliamentary appropriations bill and then the debate where we take note of the budget and all of the decisions that occur within it.
There have been some comments by members throughout the course of the debate about the importance of strong oversight institutions in Victoria, and that is something the government is certainly deeply committed to. All strong and effective democracies need strong and effective parliamentary oversight. We have seen some extraordinary scenes from the United States in the last month or two, when society’s faith, confidence and trust in their democratic institutions has really been tested in ways that I think the people who drafted the US constitution could only have imagined. But here in Victoria and indeed in Australia we are fortunate to have strong democratic institutions and to have high levels of participation in our democracy. Just this morning there were so many members who came into this place with petitions on a really wide range of issues of interest to their constituencies—again, one of the many ways that people can participate in the work that we do.
I would also take the opportunity, as a number of members have done throughout the course of this debate, on a more personal note, to thank my electorate staff. To Tim Miller and to Romy Moclair and to Lisa Carey, thank you for the work that you have been doing, and to Craig Wilson, who earlier in the year was a member of my electorate staff as well—all very committed to providing timely responses and support to people across the Western Victoria electorate who have sought our assistance. Particularly during the latter half of the year, where I have served in the small business portfolio during a period of very significant restrictions as part of the COVID response, there has been a very significant volume of calls and emails and contact through various social media accounts where people were seeking some clarification or perhaps some assistance on the interpretation of restrictions in a really rapidly moving environment.
The bulk of this work—in fact almost all of this work—has been done from the workplaces of my electorate office staff, as of course has other members’ work too, as public service employees are still substantially working from home. So I extend my gratitude to my electorate staff and also to their families, who have had to have them take up space on the kitchen bench or in a corner somewhere to run their work and effectively run my office—and so too the families of all of the electorate staff and indeed all the Parliament staff, who have had to accommodate the extraordinary demands that have been placed on them as members of the community have engaged in what I can only imagine are record numbers of interactions and an extraordinary breadth of questions, queries and calls for support and advice that have come about as a result of what has at times been a scary experience, a very uncertain experience—whether that is in terms of people’s financial security in their business or in their job or indeed concern for their own health and wellbeing. It has been a really, really tough year, and everyone has played a remarkable role.
I am conscious that tummies are rumbling. I can hear tummies rumbling, and I know that there is a desire as soon as the dinner break has been and gone for the minister who is looking after this bill, our leader in this place, Minister Symes, and Mr Rich-Phillips to have some discussion about some of the issues that have been raised during the debate and for the house to have the opportunity to give due consideration to Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendments.
So with those words I wish all Department of Parliamentary Services staff, all electorate officers and my colleagues, in case I do not have an opportunity again later in the week, a safe and restful period off and hopefully some recovery and recuperation after what has been a really rough and tough but incredibly successful year in terms of what the Victorian community have achieved with the support of their Parliament and their members of Parliament. I commend this bill to the house.
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Sitting suspended 6.28 pm until 7.35 pm.
Committed.
Committee
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I invite Mr Rich-Phillips to circulate his suggested amendments.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Deputy President. Could I have my suggested amendments circulated, please.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I seek leave of the committee to defer the consideration of Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendments 1 and 2 until his suggested amendments 3 to 9 are dealt with, because his later suggested amendments will have consequential suggested amendments for clause 3.
Leave granted.
Clauses 1 to 8—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).
Schedule 1 (19:39)
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I move:
3. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Schedule 1, page 6, line 17, omit “42 196” and insert “46 600”.
This is a suggested amendment initially to the table on page 6 of the bill, which is the estimates summary. The purpose of suggested amendment 3 and the consequential suggested amendments 6 and 7 is to increase the appropriation for the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission from $42 196 000 to $46 600 000. The consequent suggested amendments 6 and 7 adjust the relevant page of schedule 1, which relates to the IBAC—and that is on page 14—to reflect that increase of $4.4 million and carry it through to the total of funding for IBAC.
Now, we are moving this amendment on the basis that it reflects the funding level which was provided to IBAC for the 2019–20 financial year. The full estimates table in the budget paper shows that IBAC in the financial year just completed had funding of $46.6 million in total, and in this budget, if it is passed as it is, we will see that decline to $42.2 million. So the intent of this amendment is to boost the appropriation by the $4.4 million so that the total appropriation flowing to IBAC in 2020–21 will be the same as it was in 2019–20 financial year.
On the second-reading speech, I noted the comments of the commissioner, the Honourable Robert Redlich, who expressed his concern about a static budget for IBAC and the pressure that exists at IBAC, particularly given the volume of matters which have been referred to IBAC and general referrals from the community to IBAC, and we believe that in the interests of integrity this funding should be restored to IBAC so it has at least the same budget as the previous year. I guess simply, in terms of posing a question to the minister, it would be to outline why the government has appropriated less funds in the bill this year than it did in the previous year.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Rich-Phillips?
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I did pose a question to the minister at the end, which was just to explain why the government is seeking to appropriate less funds this year to IBAC than it did in the last financial year.
Ms SYMES: Sorry, Mr Rich-Phillips. What I can confirm is that as part of the 2020–21 budget the government is certainly providing IBAC with an uplift to their funding—$27.173 million over the forward estimates, representing a 20 per cent increase of their original base budget from 2021–22. The increased funding means that IBAC’s operational budget from 2021–22 will increase to $49 million and be indexed every year thereafter. The increase in resources will take into account IBAC’s transition to budgetary independence as legislated in the Integrity and Accountability Legislation Amendment (Public Interest Disclosures, Oversight and Independence) Act 2019, which is effectively also the reason that this is now in the parliamentary appropriations bill as opposed to previous years.
What I can confirm is that the budget allocation for IBAC exactly matches the bid that the IBAC office put to government. So my concerns about parliamentary interference or parliamentary views about the appropriateness or otherwise of the IBAC budget—in this instance the budgetary process is that budget bids come in from agencies, from departments, from ministers. Very often we all ask for more than we get. I am sure there is not a minister in the facility that got everything they asked for. But in this instance IBAC got what they asked for, so I think it is very inappropriate for us as a chamber to determine that IBAC should get more. Isn’t that the right of the independent body? Shouldn’t we respect that?
I guess my other concerns would be: are we setting a precedent that perhaps we think that somebody is overfunded? I do not want to have a conversation next time about someone trying to cut my agriculture budget because this house deems that agriculture is not a priority. This is an independent body. They have been given budgetary independence by virtue of the previous bill, and I can confirm that the bid that was put in is what was signed off by the parliamentary committee responsible for delivering the budget. Therefore I would say that it is just inappropriate for the Liberal Party to seek to hold to ransom this bill in attempting to deal with problems that frankly do not exist.
Dr RATNAM: I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the suggested amendments put forward by the opposition. The Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission is an essential part of the democratic system in Victoria. Any corruption by any public persons or bodies undermines our precious democracy. Governments and public bodies must act in the interests of the people of Victoria, not their own interests or the interests of a select few. Anti-corruption bodies are necessary and must be funded to do their jobs without a hint of political interference.
IBAC has been busy in recent years, but the Greens want it to have even more responsibility. As its recent report into the Lawyer X debacle demonstrates, there is no longer any excuse for the police to be investigating themselves. Instead IBAC or a similar independent body should be resourced to investigate complaints of police misconduct.
Similarly, the Victorian Ombudsman is a crucial check on the operations of government. The Ombudsman’s statement in her annual report about her funding was extraordinary. Ombudsmen when doing their jobs well often embarrass governments, but the point is that the government and public agencies learn from the Ombudsman investigations to do better by the people of Victoria. Along with these functions of the Ombudsman they also have a role in assisting public housing tenants in relation to tenants’ complaints about the director of housing. Without appropriate resources to manage all its functions, the Ombudsman has said she needs more funds. It is incumbent on the government to provide them.
Mr HAYES: An important part of our democracy is the provision of adequate funding for our oversight bodies, the Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC. The chairman of IBAC said earlier this year that if extra funding were not provided the capacity of IBAC to tackle corruption in this state would be curtailed. Any recent observer of IBAC proceedings would have to conclude that corruption is a significant problem in Victoria, and further funding for a leading organisation in tackling it should have priority. But in fact that requested additional funding has not happened. The minister says it has; I say it has not here.
The ABC’s Bridget Rollason reported on 15 October the IBAC Commissioner, Robert Redlich, QC, saying that since IBAC was created in 2012 it had not had any increase to its budget. He said:
This means that today IBAC cannot investigate a significant number of complaints of serious misconduct which may warrant our investigation.
He also said:
As the core integrity institution of Victoria, it should not be necessary for me to publicly advocate for the Commission to be adequately resourced to enable basic maintenance of the existing service capacity.
Just this week the Victorian Ombudsman also expressed disappointment at the lack of funding for her organisation in this budget. She said in her annual report:
… my ongoing funding has fallen substantially short of what is needed to respond to public expectations of my office.
She also said:
… the apparent reluctance to fund my office could risk looking like an attempt to undermine it.
The Sustainable Australia Party is very concerned about the extent of corruption in Victoria being revealed at IBAC. We must have additional funding for both the Ombudsman and IBAC, and we support the opposition amendment.
Ms SYMES: I would just like to respond to some of the comments that Mr Hayes made and point out that those comments from the IBAC Commissioner were made prior to him knowing the outcome of his budget. As I can confirm, the budget bid as submitted was what has been approved by the government. I also note that you refer to comments of previous years—I think you mentioned 2012, which was before what I can respond to in relation to our government’s responsibilities. But IBAC had underspends in 2014 and 2015, and they sought the approval of government to rephase that underspend across the years of 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20, and then did not seek an extension of this funding in 2020–21 as part of the year’s budget.
We are concerned that this is inappropriate parliamentary interference in an independent process. Of course we want adequately funded integrity bodies. Of course we want corruption to be investigated. Our contention is that, in relation to IBAC, they are adequately funded, as is reflected by us agreeing to the submission that they made to the budget process.
Committee divided on suggested amendment:
| Ayes, 15 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Ratnam, Dr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Noes, 22 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Meddick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | ||
Suggested amendment negatived.
Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I move:
4. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly—
Schedule 1, page 6, line 18, omit “19 608” and insert “21 608”.
It is a test of suggested amendments 8 and 9. The purpose of suggested amendment 4 is to increase the appropriation for the Victorian Ombudsman from the listed $19.6 million to $21.6 million. This reflects the shortfall that the Ombudsman has experienced in her budget. As members have heard from Mr Hayes and other contributions to the second-reading debate, the Ombudsman was unable to carry out her duties in the last financial year with the funding she was provided and was required to run a deficit in her office. She has indicated publicly that she sought additional funding this year of some $6 million, which she did not receive. The purpose of this additional $2 million is to provide funding to cover the deficit she incurred last year so that she can activity at the same level she had last year and have budget cover for it.
In relation to IBAC, the minister at the table, the Minister for Regional Development, said earlier that the IBAC Commissioner received the funding he wanted. Well, in this instance, it is very clear on the record from the Ombudsman that she sought $6 million in this year’s budget and has not received it. So I ask members of the house to support this suggested amendment which provides an additional $2 million of funding for the Ombudsman to ensure that she can at least operate at the same level of activity that she undertook last year when she incurred a substantial deficit.
Ms SYMES: I will just briefly respond that the government is not in a position to support this suggested amendment for many of the reasons that I have articulated previously. But just in relation to the funding for the Ombudsman, I can confirm that this has grown by 37 per cent since 2015–16 and the growth is a higher percentage in comparison to many other public agencies. The new funding this year is $2.763 million over four years, $0.691 million ongoing to recruit an additional five full-time equivalent employees to perform additional functions and powers introduced by the integrity amendment act and one-off asset funding of $300 000 in 2020–21 for new budget and planning software.
Last year’s budget paper 3 shows that the Ombudsman consistently met their output targets for finalising jurisdictional complaints by more than 1000 or 7 per cent. This agency, we would contend, is not underfunded. The budget papers show an increase from a total of $16.2 million last year to $19 million this year, and there is an increase under this government of 37 per cent since 2015–16. I would just reiterate for members that did not hear previously: I am concerned about the interference of Parliament in the budgetary process of dictating the merits—
Members interjecting.
Ms SYMES: My concern is that the priorities of the government to set the budget are well balanced and involve agencies, departments, ministers and independent agencies contributing to a budget process. When we have independent agencies, I am concerned that the Parliament—
Members interjecting.
Ms SYMES: If you were interested, you would have been in here earlier for the debate. So perhaps stop interjecting so that we can get on with the vote. My concern is that once we as an upper house start deciding who is worthy of money and who is not it will become a very, very detailed process. Individual interests will say, ‘This deserves more money; this deserves less money’. In the context of people asking for money of course every minister asks for more money than they get; of course every agency asks for more money than they get. But what we have here is an Ombudsman who is meeting their targets and performing an important task, and the budget allocation this year is appropriate.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Firstly, I think it is outrageous that a minister of the Crown would suggest the Parliament is interfering in the running of the state of Victoria. There is a bit of ‘It’s my way or no way’ by the sounds of it. I think that is outrageous. The question I have for the minister is: Ombudsman Glass has been quite public in her commentary around the level of funding and her view that they have been underfunded in this financial year. Minister, was Ombudsman Glass wrong in her commentary?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Was the question about the amendment or the schedule?
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can we have some quiet, please. Mr Ondarchie, was your question about the schedule to the minister or about the amendment to Mr Rich-Phillips?
Mr Ondarchie: About the amendment.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are asking about the Ombudsman’s budget, so I suggest you are asking about the schedule.
Ms SYMES: Thank you, Deputy President. Of course the Ombudsman is certainly entitled to make her views known and public. I respect the right of any independent agency to make their personal views known. Ms Glass has done so, and I respect her views.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! The question is that Mr Rich-Phillips’s suggested amendment 4, which is a test for his suggested amendments 8 and 9, be agreed to.
Committee divided on suggested amendment:
| Ayes, 15 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Bourman, Mr | Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Lovell, Ms | Ratnam, Dr |
| Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Noes, 22 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | Meddick, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Tierney, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Shing, Ms | Vaghela, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Stitt, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | ||
Suggested amendment negatived.
Schedule 1—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).
Bill reported to house without amendment.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (20:12): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (20:12): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.
Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020
Introduction and first reading
The PRESIDENT (20:14): There is a message from the Assembly:
The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to provide for quarantine fees and for other purposes’.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:14): I move:
That the bill be now read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Read first time.
Ms TIERNEY: I move:
That the bill be treated as an urgent bill.
Motion agreed to.
Statement of compatibility
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:15): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:
Opening paragraphs
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020.
In my opinion, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Bill seeks to make amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to allow the charging of fees for mandatory quarantine for international travellers.
Importantly, the Bill enables the Victorian Government to make regulations relating to the prescribing of fees payable in relation to a quarantined person’s period of detention, which must be reasonably referrable to costs incurred by the State, and to the waiving and paying of those fees. The amendments will be made by inserting new sections 238A to 238E, 247 and 248, and a new Part 14 into the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, to enable these regulations to be made. As the amendments are specific to the impacts of COVID-19 on the State, the amendments will be temporary and will be repealed on 31 December 2021.
The Bill provides that a ‘quarantined person’ is liable to pay to the State prescribed fees relating to their detention at a specified place of detention. The fees will be payable in manner, or method, as specified in the regulations which will be made at a future date. This includes allowing the regulations to make provision for instalment or payment plans, concessional fees, waivers, the imposition of conditions for instalment or payment plans, and manner in which applications may be made relating to those matters.
A quarantined person is defined as a person:
1. who has arrived in Victoria from overseas, or another State or a Territory after travelling directly to Victoria after arriving from overseas in that State or Territory, and
2. who, for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the serious risk to public health posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, is detained under section 200(1) of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 at a place specified by an authorised officer pursuant to that section on or after the commencement of that clause of the Bill.
The majority of the charter impacts will be assessed when the regulations are made.
Human Rights Issues
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the Charter and, if any rights are limited, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified having regard to the factors in section 7(2) of the Charter.
The Bill itself will only have minimal effects on the Charter rights of persons. However, the regulations imposed under the powers may have an effect on the Charter rights of persons when the regulations are made. The impact that any regulations made under the Bill might have on the rights of individuals will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
The measures in the Bill are designed to support the State’s overall public health framework by allowing the State to recover the reasonably referrable costs of services provided by the State to ‘quarantined persons’ to manage public health risks from the COVID-19 pandemic. The government is obliged to use all means necessary to protect the health and life of all persons in Victoria and these reforms support the State’s obligations to do so.
Where the Bill may have impacts on Charter rights, an overview is provided below.
Right to life
The amendments in the Bill promote the right to life in Victoria by supporting the State’s response to the risks posed by COVID-19. Section 9 of the Charter provides that every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life.
In the present circumstances, the COVID-19 virus is life threatening and continues to be a present and real threat to life. The Bill furthers these rights, particularly in relation to vulnerable members of society who are at particular risk from a broad and unrestricted spread of COVID-19, by supporting the State’s existing regulatory framework to enforce mandatory quarantine on them by ensuring the State can recover the reasonable cost of providing mandatory quarantine imposed on ‘quarantined persons’. The Bill therefore supports the State’s overall regulatory framework which allows for the promotion of individuals’ right to life, health, and the broader public health of the Victorian community.
The impact of the reforms is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the right to life, and the impact of the regulations on the right to life will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the right to life in section 9 of the Charter.
Right to property
Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. There are three elements to this right:
1. the interest interfered with must be ‘property’, which includes all real and personal property interests recognised under the general law;
2. the interference must amount to a ‘deprivation’ of property, that is, any ‘de facto expropriation’ by means of a substantial restriction in fact on a person’s use or enjoyment of their property; and
3. the deprivation must not be ‘in accordance with law’ in that the law must be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable the person to regulate their conduct.
The regulations made under the reforms in the Bill may require the payment (deprivation) of fees in the form of money, which is a form of property interest recognised by law. However, as the regulations will require the payment of the fees in accordance with the law, and there will be significant flexibility as the Bill provides for the ability for the regulations to allow fees to be waived (in part or full), and for the payment of fees by way of payment plans or instalments, this will be ‘deprivation’ in accordance with law. The flexible payment arrangements will minimise the impacts on the right to property held by quarantined persons. The fees imposed by the regulations must also be reasonably referrable to the costs of goods and services incurred by the State in detaining a quarantined person at a specified place in detention.
While the fees may be collected retrospectively under the regulations from 7 December 2020, this will not be an unreasonable or disproportionate impact because the Government will have announced the imposition of the fees ahead of the commencement of this Bill. The announcement allows the fees to be generally accessible in a way so that persons who may be required to pay fees, and know this in advance before the implementation of the regulations that they will need to pay fees if they are a returning overseas traveller to Victoria, or if they need to be detained for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the serious risk to public health posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Any such measures imposed under the regulations will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to property under the Charter and the impact of the regulations on the right to property will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
In addition, the retrospective operation of any regulations to be made will not impose retrospective criminal laws (section 27 of the Charter).
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the right to property under section 20 of the Charter.
Right to Equality
Section 8(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to enjoy their human rights without discrimination. Section 8(3) of the Charter provides that every person is entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination and has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination. The purpose of this component of the right to equality is to ensure that all laws and policies are applied equally, and do not have a discriminatory effect. ‘Discrimination’ under the Charter is defined by reference to the definition in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) on the basis of an attribute in section 6 of that Act, which includes age, race, sex, disability and parental status amongst many others.
It is possible that the fees imposed under regulations made under the Bill on ‘quarantined persons’ may potentially amount to either direct or indirect discrimination under the EO Act because of the differential effect that their use may have on certain groups of people. Indirect discrimination occurs where there is a requirement, condition or practice imposed that is the same for everyone but disadvantages a person, or is likely to disadvantage a person, because they have one or more of the protected attributes, and the requirement, condition or practice is not reasonable. Direct discrimination occurs where a person treats a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute.
As any imposition of fees under any proposed regulations under the Bill’s reforms may give rise to direct or indirect discrimination and they will need to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to equality. The Bill provides for the ability for the regulations to allow fees to be waived, in part or full, and for the payment of fees by way of payment plans or instalments. This provides significant flexibility to minimise direct or indirect discrimination against ‘quarantined persons’. The fees imposed by the regulations must also be reasonably referrable to the costs of goods and services incurred by the State in detaining a quarantined person at a specified place in detention. It is also reasonable that these costs may vary depending on the relevant needs of different quarantined persons. The Bill allows the regulations to include minimum, maximum or scaled fees as appropriate to minimise the effects of any direct or indirect discrimination caused by the regulations.
Therefore, the impact of the reforms are reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the right to equality, and the impact the regulations on the right to equality will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the right to equality in section 8(3) of the Charter.
Freedom of movement
The right to freedom of movement is contained in section 12 of the Charter and applies generally to a person’s movement within Victoria. It applies to persons lawfully within Victoria and is made up of the following components: the right to move freely within Victoria, the right to enter and leave Victoria, and the right to choose where to live. The right has been described as providing protection from unnecessary restrictions upon a person’s freedom of movement. It extends, generally, to movement without impediment throughout the State and a right of access to places and services used by members of the public, subject to compliance with regulations legitimately made in the public interest.
Relevantly, the right to freedom of movement will be engaged where a person is: required to move to, or from, a particular place or is prevented from doing this; subject to strict surveillance or reporting obligations relating to moving; or directed or ordered where to live.
The powers in the Bill to make regulations for fees for the quarantine of persons in specified places will not directly impact on the right to freedom of movement, but the regulations that are made under the power may indirectly impact on the right when the imposition of fees under the power are combined with the impact of public health orders under Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 on ‘quarantined persons’ t. However, this impact is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the right to movement, and the impact the regulations on the right to freedom of movement will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the right to movement in section 12 of the Charter.
Rights to privacy, family and home
Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. Section 13(a) contains internal qualifications; namely, interferences with privacy only limit the right if they are unlawful or arbitrary. 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.
‘Privacy’ is a right of considerable amplitude. The fundamental values which the right to privacy expresses are the physical and psychological integrity, individual and social identity, and autonomy and inherent dignity, of the person. It protects the individual’s interest in the freedom of their personal and social sphere. Relevantly, this encompasses their right to establish and develop meaningful social relations. The right to privacy may also potentially incorporate a right to work of some kind and in some circumstances.
The ‘family’ aspect of section 13(a) is related to section 17(1) of the Charter, which states that families are entitled to protection by society and the State. However, whilst the two rights overlap, they are not co-extensive. Section 13(a) is a negative obligation that only prohibits unlawful or arbitrary interferences with family; whereas section 17(1) is a positive obligation on society and the State.
The ‘home’ aspect of section 13(a) refers to a person’s place of residence, regardless of whether they have a legal interest in that residence. What constitutes an interference with this aspect of the right to privacy has been approached in a practical manner and may cover actions that prevent a person from continuing to live in their home, as well as interferences with the home itself.
The powers in the Bill to make regulations for fees for quarantine of persons in specified places will not directly impact on the three aspects of this right but the regulations that are made under the power to impose fees may indirectly impact on the right when the imposition of fees under the power are combined with the impact of public health orders under Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 on a ‘quarantined person’. This is because the imposition of fees will contribute to overall impacts on personal autonomy and private relationships, may require the disclosure of private information (particularly for the making of statutory declarations for waivers of fees or for the instalment or payment plans), affect the ability of families to gather with members who are quarantined due to diagnosis with an infectious disease (including COVID-19), and the ability of people to reside in their own homes if they are quarantined at another location.
However, this impact is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances in order to be compatible with the right to privacy, family and home, and the impact the regulations on the right to privacy, family and home will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the rights to privacy, family and home in section 13 of the Charter.
Right to liberty
Section 21 of the Charter protects the right to liberty. The liberty rights in section 21 reflect aspects of the common law right to personal liberty, which has been described as the most elementary and important of all common law rights. In particular, section 21(2) prohibits a person from being subjected to arbitrary detention, whilst section 21(3) prohibits a person from being deprived of their liberty except on grounds, and in accordance with procedures, established by law. Together, the effect of section 21(2) and (3) is that the right to liberty may legitimately be constrained only in circumstances where the deprivation of liberty by detention is both lawful, in that it is specifically authorised by law, and not arbitrary, in that it is reasonable or proportionate in all the circumstances.
The scope of the right in section 21 extends beyond detention as part of the criminal justice system to protective or preventative forms of detention, including to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. Whether a particular restriction amounts to a ‘deprivation of liberty’ for the purpose of the right in section 21 is a question of degree or intensity. Detention or deprivation of liberty does not necessarily require physical restraint; however, the right to liberty is concerned with the physical detention of the individual, and not mere restrictions on freedom of movement.
The powers in the Bill to make regulations for fees for the quarantine of persons in specified places will not directly impact on the right to freedom of liberty, but the regulations that are made under the power may indirectly impact on the right when the imposition of fees under the power are combined with the impact of public health orders under Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 on ‘quarantined persons’ . As set out elsewhere in this Statement of Compatibility, there is significant flexibility in the Bill to allow the regulations to be flexible in their application to individuals. However, this impact is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the right to freedom of liberty, and the impact of the regulations on the right to liberty will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the rights to liberty in section 21 of the Charter.
Humane treatment when deprived of liberty
Section 22(1) of the Charter recognises that all persons deprived of liberty must be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Further, section 22(3) recognises that a person who is detained must be treated in a way that is appropriate for a person who has not been convicted.
The powers in the Bill to make regulations for fees for the quarantine of persons in specified places will not directly impact on the rights in relation to human treatment in section 22 of the Charter, but the regulations that are made under the power may indirectly impact on the rights when the imposition of fees under the power are combined with the impact of public health orders under Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 requiring a ‘quarantined person’ to quarantine in a specified place. However, this impact is likely to be reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the rights in section 22 of the Charter, and the impact the regulations on those rights will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the rights in section 22 of the Charter.
Protection of families and children
Section 17(1) of the Charter recognises that families are the fundamental group unit of society, and entitles families to protection by the society and the State. Section 17(1) is related to the section 13(a) privacy right and an act or decision that unlawfully or arbitrarily interferes with a family is also likely to limit that family’s entitlement to protection under section 17(1).
The Charter does not define the term ‘family’; however, it is given a broad interpretation. It at least includes ties between near relatives, with other indicia of familial relationships including cohabitation, economic ties, and a regular and intense relationship. Cultural traditions may be relevant when considering whether a group of persons constitute a ‘family’ in a given case. In this respect, the cultural right in section 19(2)(c) of the Charter, which states that Aboriginal people must not be denied the right to maintain their kinship ties, is also relevant.
Section 17(2) of the Charter provides that every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as is in their best interests and is needed by them by reason of being a child. It recognises the special vulnerability of children, defined in the Charter as persons under 18 years of age. ‘Best interests’ is a complex concept which must be determined on a case-by- case basis. However, the following elements may be taken into account when assessing the child’s best interests: the child’s views; the child’s identity; preservation of the family environment and maintaining relationships; care, protection and safety of the child; situations of vulnerability; the child’s right to health; and the child’s right to education.
The powers in the Bill to make regulations for fees for the quarantine of persons in specified places will not directly impact on the rights in relation to protection of families and children, but the regulations that are made under the power may indirectly impact on the rights when the imposition of fees under the power are combined with the impact of public health orders under Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 on ‘quarantined persons’. However, as set out elsewhere in this Statement of Compatibility, there is significant flexibility in the Bill to allow the regulations to be flexible in their application to individuals. This will include the ability for the regulations to prescribe fees, payment methods or waivers to differentiate between individuals, families and the broad variety of different personal or familial relationships that exist. Therefore, this impact is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances and compatible with the right in relation to protection of families and children, and the impact the regulations on those rights will be considered when a human rights certificate is developed for the regulations.
I consider the Bill to be consistent with the rights in relation to the protection of families and children in section 17 of the Charter.
I consider that the amendments in the Bill only affect or limit Charter rights in ways that are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable.
Hon Gayle Tierney MP
Minister for Higher Education
Minister for Training and Skills
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council
Second reading
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:15): I move:
That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Motion agreed to.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (20:16): I ask for an explanation as to why the bill is being treated as an urgent bill.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:17): Members would be aware that international flights resumed to this state yesterday. Members are well aware that there has been a reset in terms of hotel quarantine. Members would be aware that there has been an inquiry. Members would be aware that the government would have sought legal advice, and of course it has taken time for the government to settle on the exact model that it wanted to adopt. These are some of the reasons as to why we are pursuing this in this way, and in terms of the proceedings, it was outlined in the blue this morning that this was a possibility in terms of standing order 14.34. I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Incorporated speech as follows:
Victoria has made significant achievements in recent months in the face of an unprecedented challenge presented to us by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
However, there are thousands of Victorians overseas who are ready to come home, and now is the time for Victoria to put in place laws that support a nationally consistent mandatory quarantine scheme.
In the absence of significant developments that alter the risk profile of COVID-19 to the Victorian community (such as the delivery of an effective vaccine with community-wide uptake), individual and population-based interventions remain critical to reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
This includes mandatory quarantine for international arrivals under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
The Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020 will make amendments to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to allow regulations to be made that permit the charging of fees for mandatory quarantine for international travellers.
International arrivals to Victoria will have resumed (subject to necessary caps) by the time the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020 is debated by this house. Therefore, Victoria needs to take the necessary steps to ensure that our public health framework and mandatory quarantine fee scheme is generally consistent with the approach taken in other Australian jurisdictions
The Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020 will enable the Victorian Government to charge fees for mandatory quarantine from all international passengers arriving in Victoria, including Australian Citizens and Australian permanent residents. This is consistent with other States and Territories and the approach agreed by National Cabinet in July this year with respect to mandatory quarantine.
There is currently no identifiable power for the State to charge these fees and to offset the costs of a mandatory quarantine program.
Mandatory quarantine is delivered at significant costs in all Australian jurisdictions, including Victoria. The proposed amendments enable the State to collect fees to offset some of the costs to the State of implementing a mandatory quarantine program.
As with other States and Territories, these charges will be provided for in legislation as a fee for services rendered by the State. The fees to be prescribed in regulations made under the proposed amendments will be based on the types of reasonably referrable costs associated with quarantine such as accommodation, food and cleaning. The fees to be prescribed will be in line with those charged by other Australian states and territories within their mandatory quarantine programs.
On 1 December 2020, the Government established a dedicated agency, COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV) which will oversee all elements of our new and stronger mandatory quarantine program.
CQV will be instrumental in supporting the State’s response to the impacts of COVID-19 by overseeing responsibility for the COVID-19 Accommodation program and ensuring that Victorians and visitors can enter safely into Victoria from overseas.
Under this Bill, CQV will be provided with important responsibilities to implement the fee scheme (to be established in regulations to be made).
The Government acknowledges that charging fees for mandatory quarantine will have differing impacts on individuals and families arriving in Victoria from overseas, and will include international travellers and visitors as well as returning Australian citizens and permanent residents. These people will come from differing backgrounds and many may have suffered significant hardship this year. Therefore, the Bill also provides for the making of regulations to set out a process for determining the waiver of fees or concessional fee arrangements to be made, as well as payment plans to account for a person’s individual personal or financial circumstances. The fee scheme will seek to balance the need to reduce costs to the State of the mandatory quarantine program with the cost and impact of fees on individuals and families arriving in Victoria.
CQV will have the important task of ensuring that persons impacted by these fees can access fair and reasonable payment plans, waivers or concessions as necessary for those who suffer significant financial or other hardships. It is implicit in the amendments that CQV will be responsible for ensuring this balance is struck appropriately.
As I am the responsible Minister for the reforms in this Bill it is expected that regulations will be made within coming weeks to implement the fee scheme for mandatory quarantine.
The proposed Bill enables the amendments and any regulations made pursuant to the amendments (once passed and assented to) to take retrospective effect on 7 December 2020.
A retrospective clause is necessary as the Bill will not be passed by this Parliament before international flights into Victoria resume, and will require a minimum number of days following passage through Parliament for Royal Assent, to take effect.
Retrospective commencement from 7 December 2020 also enables equitable treatment of international arrivals entering into Victoria regardless of when they secure flights to Victoria. By enabling the scheme to take effect from the date of resumption of international flights, the Bill allows for the most equitable approach, so that travellers who arrive later are not ‘penalised’ in comparison to those who are able to secure earlier flights into Victoria.
As we have announced these fees already, returning international travellers have been put on notice that they may be charged fees for mandatory quarantine, and this will minimise the negative impacts of any regulations made to take retrospective effect.
It also ensures Victoria’s approach is consistent with other Australian jurisdictions, and reduces any inequities if international travellers return to Victoria instead of another State or Territory.
The proposed amendments include clauses disapplying certain requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (SL Act) for regulations to be made under the proposed amendments. In particular, the requirements for consultation and completion of a regulatory impact statement (RIS) are disapplied. This has not been done lightly. Inclusion of these clauses is required because of the strong public interest in having a fee scheme for mandatory quarantine in place as soon as possible upon resumption of flights, to reduce costs to Victorians of mandatory quarantine for international arrivals.
In balancing the strong public interest of operationalising a fee scheme promptly with the need for appropriate scrutiny of laws and regulations by the Parliament, the proposed amendments to the Bill (including the SL Act disapplication clauses) have been drafted to have limited operation and the reforms will be repealed on 31 December 2021, apart from some transitional provisions that are necessary to be retained.
Should a fee scheme continue to be required for mandatory quarantine beyond 31 December 2021, the Government will bring a future Bill to the Parliament to enable more permanent laws and regulations to be made. This is consistent with the approach the Government has taken with other COVID-19 specific laws that the Parliament has considered, and the important responsibility the Parliament has in overseeing the State’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Victorians can be proud of the significant achievements that we have made as a community in the face of unprecedented challenges, changes and tragedies in our daily lives.
This Bill will ensure our public health regulatory framework for mandatory quarantine is aligned with other Australian jurisdictions, and will support Victorian’s ongoing efforts to continue the fight against this wicked virus.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (20:18): I noted a tone of concern and exasperation from the minister when I asked the reasonable question about why this bill was being treated as an urgent bill. Because it is a farce. National cabinet made the decision to charge incoming people to Australia, a cost recovery for hotel quarantine, in July. In July national cabinet made that decision, and when did the other jurisdictions implement that model? In July. And here we are in December, weeks after the Coate inquiry handed down its interim report on 6 November—weeks. The minister says it has taken until today to draft this legislation. What a farce. Why won’t the minister just admit it? It was an oversight, a mistake. They forgot about it, and they have been trying to fix it retrospectively ever since. This bill should have been debated in the last sitting week prior to the first planes arriving back in Melbourne yesterday.
It is yet another example of how this government simply have not got this system right, they have not thought it through and they are still playing catch-up despite the second wave, the biggest public policy failing in Victoria’s history, which has cost more than 800 lives, closed thousands of businesses and cost billions of dollars in lost economic activity. Thank goodness for the commonwealth government with its JobKeeper and other schemes that have kept this Victorian economy going after Daniel Andrews had it locked down and closed for week after week after week after week because of his second wave, which should never have occurred—and did not occur in any other jurisdiction in Australia. How can the public have any confidence in this government when this bill is being debated after planes have landed and it is going to be rushed through the Parliament? It is pathetic. Legislation should not be rushed through like this unless it is absolutely necessary. Incompetence and a failure to plan is no excuse. That is why I asked the minister for an explanation—an explanation she could not give.
I really hope the government has learned the lessons from its shocking failures that led to the second wave. The Coate inquiry revealed the hotel quarantine process up until that time had cost Victorian taxpayers $195 million, and we have had three ministers now with responsibility for hotel quarantine. Ms Mikakos was the first minister, if people remember her, led by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Ms Peake, who has also gone. We have had four ministers and two departmental secretaries walk out the door this year under this government—a remarkable fact. To lose four ministers and two departmental secretaries, including the head of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, who has ruled the Victorian public service for six years, is a remarkable fact.
Of course we know former Minister Mikakos left after her conflict of evidence with the Premier at the Coate inquiry. Ms Mikakos basically called Daniel Andrews a liar. She said that his evidence should not be relied upon—the Premier’s evidence to the Coate inquiry should not be relied upon. I tell you what, if his factional allies like Jenny Mikakos believe his evidence should not be relied upon, how can anyone in Victoria believe a word that man says? How can they believe a word that man says, particularly with the contradictions over the deployment of the ADF? I mean, the contortions and the change of language that the Premier developed to try and justify his refusal to accept that the ADF was on offer, that the ADF was ready to be deployed, is a disgrace, and frankly no-one believes him. And for emergency management commissioner Andrew Crisp to change his evidence, like saying day is night and tomorrow night is day—honestly, how do these people have any credibility—
Ms Crozier interjected.
Mr O’DONOHUE: As Ms Crozier says, how can they sleep at night? It is a disgrace. The biggest disgrace out of this whole fiasco is the cost to Victorians. The lack of integrity that so many of our leaders in this government have shown is such a shocking reflection on them and the culture that exists in this government. Daniel Andrews has been prepared to throw anyone under the bus if they contradict him, as long as he survives.
Here we are with this bill today, brought in after the planes have started landing, now with a third minister in charge of hotel quarantine. We have gone from Minister Mikakos to Minister Hennessy, who messed up the hot hotels—that is currently under investigation by WorkSafe—and now we are up to Minister Neville, the minister who was brought in to do the job on the CFA when that got a bit politically hot. Now she has been brought in to do the job on hotel quarantine. Well, I certainly hope the government have got this right, and I hope they have learned the lessons of their shocking, shocking failures.
Now, before I talk further about the bill, I also just want to make a comment about emergency management commissioner Andrew Crisp’s previous request for the deployment of 850 Australian Defence Force personnel and the withdrawal of that request the following day. There has been much speculation in recent days and weeks that that request was overturned by the Premier himself. Very senior Labor Party sources have been briefing journalists, saying that it was the Premier himself who overturned that request from Andrew Crisp, that he was the one who intervened and that he hit the roof when he became aware that Andrew Crisp had requested that the ADF intervene. I think it is incumbent on Mr Crisp and it is incumbent on the Premier to actually reveal the truth and the facts about how that occurred, because so far we do not actually know the truth and the facts. If those 850 ADF personnel that were available as part of that initial national cabinet decision and then subsequently requested by Andrew Crisp several weeks later had been deployed, we would not have had over 800 Victorians die, we would not have been in lockdown for months and months and the situation in Victoria would have been much better than it is.
The consequences of this gross incompetence and negligence and these cover-ups will be felt for decades, because this week we are debating budget bills and what we see is red ink as far as the eye can see—$155 billion in the out years—and of course that does not even get close to including the debt assuming the Suburban Rail Loop is built. It is only for the forward estimates. But many of these projects the government has not turned a sod on yet will take 10 to 12 years to deliver and possibly hundreds of billions of dollars of extra debt. And all the time our economy has shrunk more than other states, our unemployment has increased by more and the consequences of COVID have been far more severe because of that second wave that should not have occurred.
Now, other states have had issues with their quarantine programs to be sure, but they have not led to a second wave, because they have had processes and systems in place to identify problems, to identify mistakes and to fix them. I hope that after starting with a contact-tracing system that belonged in the Stone Age, using pens and paper, perhaps now we have a system that is contemporary, that uses modern technology like computers, that is traceable and that allows for information to be transferred and accessed by different people at different times. Let us hope that is the case now, because now that we have people from overseas landing in Melbourne and undergoing quarantine, the community has an expectation that the lessons of the first disaster will be learned for the second time and that we will not have a repeat of the tragedy that has led to so much suffering and so many mistakes.
Ms Crozier in an interjection before mentioned mental health, and of course the mental health consequences of the second lockdown caused by the negligence of this government will be felt for years. It will not be measured in budget deficits, it will not be measured in increases in debt and it will not be measured in the normal matrixes that we rely upon; it will be felt by Victorians whose businesses have been lost and who have lost their homes or whose sense of isolation from being by themselves for month after month after month has left them with a permanent issue affecting their mental health, and that rarely gets reflected in statistics. It is a reality that many Victorians will silently have to live with and deal with.
Now, we are very concerned, as I said, that this bill has been rushed in here after the planes have started landing. Clearly the government forgot to action this issue despite having nearly half a year to think about it and have something ready.
This bill is enabling legislation only and outsources a range of the operational issues associated with hotel quarantine to regulations, and in the bill briefing the department were unable to say when they would be operational. They were not yet completed in the drafting process, and that concerns us greatly, because the planes have landed yesterday and today; there will be more tomorrow and more the day after. We are supposed to be hosting one of the four grand slams next month, and we have not even figured out the hotel quarantine processes, despite Jennifer Coate’s interim report being tabled on 6 November and despite having months to learn from other jurisdictions in Australia. Still the government cannot tell us details about the Australian Open and other international events that are scheduled to start next month and next year. So in that context the opposition has amendments to the bill, and I would like to now circulate those amendments.
Opposition amendments circulated by Mr O’DONOHUE pursuant to standing orders.
Mr O’DONOHUE: For the amendments that I am moving I want to thank my colleague the member for Caulfield in the other place, Mr Southwick, the Shadow Minister for Police, who moved these amendments in the Assembly, and I am moving the same amendments in the Council. The purpose of these amendments is to give some structure and rigour to the user-pays notion that sits behind this legislation—the requirement for quarantine travellers to in effect pay for their accommodation whilst in quarantine. One of the issues Mr Southwick has identified in his research is that for a small minority of returned travellers some other jurisdictions in Australia are actually paying for the quarantine service and leaving that cost ultimately with taxpayers. Now, we recognise that for some there will be hardship criteria and a need for the state to meet the cost of that quarantine, but for others it is a legitimate expectation that they bear that cost. So what these amendments seek to do is to mirror the Victorian state government eligibility criteria for the current COVID-19 rent relief grant and set a fair basis for the determination of waivers.
Often issues such as this could be dealt with by way of regulation, but the regulations are not drafted. We have not seen the regulations, and returned travellers landed yesterday and will land today and tomorrow. But it is not an unreasonable expectation that Parliament sets parameters around these sorts of issues given that this bill will go live presumably very soon after it passes, and that will be the basis upon which hotel quarantine people are charged for providing that service. So that is the purpose of this amendment, and, as I say, I thank Mr Southwick for his research and for doing that work that he has done on this issue. The opposition will not be opposing this bill. We recognise the decision of national cabinet. We recognise the, in effect, fee-for-service nature that this bill is seeking to operationalise or empower, and, as I say, these amendments give some structure to that.
As I said earlier, hotel quarantine has been a fiasco in Victoria, the biggest public policy failing in Victoria’s history. Beyond the issues I have dealt with already, another very serious issue is that of the procurement process for services to hotel quarantine. There were many questions raised about the security contracts that were awarded. A $30 million contract went to a security company not based in Victoria, not on the agreed tender list, and there are many, many questions about that.
Another aspect of the procurement is how the Pinskier brothers, Labor royalty, came to have the hotel quarantine medical contracts—very lucrative contracts, I am sure, and there was no tender. Now, in the evidence given to the hotel quarantine inquiry by Dr Pinskier he said he was approached in his capacity as a head of a peak body, but Dr Rait, the head of the AMA, gave slightly different evidence—and to me there is still a very, very important question to be answered about how the Pinskier brothers came to have such a lucrative contract without a tender, without a formal contract. At the date—I think it was 2 September—Dr Pinskier signed his statement to the Coate hotel quarantine inquiry, as of the date of him signing his statement, he actually said there was yet to be a written contract executed. So for months and months the Pinskier brothers were providing medical services to the hotel quarantine inquiry—one of the doctors Pinskier being a former vice-president of the Labor Party, I understand; very, very close connections to Labor—landing a plum contract without tender in their lap that operated for months and months without a formal contract being executed.
I mean, it raises obvious questions, doesn’t it? It raises obvious questions. And one of the questions I am going to ask the minister—and I will give the minister a warning about this—in committee is: what tender process has been undertaken for this new hotel quarantine process? Are the Pinskier brothers providing the medical services to the current hotel quarantine processes, and if they are, what was the competitive tender process on which they were awarded that contract? Because there is a very unpleasant odour emanating from some of these contracts, and it concerns me greatly that there is a potential that taxpayers funds have been awarded without full probity, without full transparency, to people who are extremely closely aligned to the Labor Party, to the Premier’s private office.
As I say, there is a significant odour about that that needs to be explained, that has not yet been explained—and as I said in this place previously, over and above those Labor Party links, we know the Pinskiers operate, one might say, an interesting business model. Their relationship with Melbourne Pathology, the way they leased premises and then subleased premises without landlord consent, has all been laid out in a VCAT decision. It is on the public record; it is there, available to be seen. A seven-day hearing over faulty air conditioning has laid bare the Pinskier brothers’ business model.
Why the government would choose these people to have this lucrative contract is an open question that is yet to be answered. It is yet to be answered—
Ms Crozier: And it needs to be.
Mr O’DONOHUE: and it does need to be, Ms Crozier, because, as I say, the hotel quarantine process that led to the second wave raises so many issues about incompetence. But there are also questions about, let us say, the awarding of very lucrative contracts that possibly could go into the millions of dollars without formal tender processes. It really, really raises serious questions. The opposition will not be opposing this bill. We recognise the decision of the national cabinet, but we are moving amendments—and I thank Mr Southwick—to give extra rigour and clarity about how that fee-for-service arrangement should occur.
Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (20:40): This is a very straightforward process that is being put forward here. It is to amend the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 to provide for fees for quarantine of people arriving in Victoria from overseas. We know that there are a fair number of Victorians who are very keen to come home. I should salute the efforts of Victorians here who have worked incredibly hard to combat the global pandemic. Thanks to their hard work the strategy is working. Victorians have worked collectively really hard to get to COVID normal by Christmas, and we are doing everything necessary to ensure essential government services continue and continue in a way that is COVID safe. But the pandemic of course is not over yet. We know that it is quite dire in many countries across the globe, and obviously vigilance has to be maintained in order to be able to surmount this terrible disease.
But because we know there are Victorians who want to come home we have to make sure that they are able to come home in a COVID-safe way. I am very pleased to say that the hotel quarantine program and the single entity are set up to run; it is all ready to go. So what does this set-up look like? I think it is fair enough that people want to know what it looks like and what it is going to do for those Victorians who are coming home but also how it is going to protect the community at large in Victoria. It is a stronger quarantine program with strengthened leadership, oversight and training, embedded public health and enforcement expertise and clear obligations for both staff and residents to keep them and the community safe. There are clear lines of responsibility and accountability, and we have hundreds of police, ADF, health workers and other staff ready to accommodate returned travellers.
I am pleased that the opposition has said that they will not oppose the bill. It would certainly be injurious to Victoria if they did, because if we were not to charge here, that might incentivise residents to come to Victoria to avoid paying costs, and that would not be equitable and that would not provide certainty for all Victorians returning home. So certainly this is necessary, and it is certainly in line with and endorsed by national cabinet to be charging fees in order to cover the cost of mandatory quarantine. So it simply makes good sense.
It will be led by corrections commissioner Emma Cassar, who has been appointed as commissioner of COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV) and will report directly to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Additional infection controls have been introduced, including the daily testing of staff and voluntary regular testing of their family and household members; a centralised contact-tracing team; proactive contact mapping for all staff; a ban on secondary face-to-face employment for all staff; and strengthened PPE protocols. Another important point is that frontline staff will work in bubbles to ensure they only have contact with a limited number of other staff during their shift, allowing for the bubble to be taken offline with minimal impact if one staff member becomes unwell. We have done the work to make sure we have the best possible quarantine program. Of course we cannot eliminate the risk entirely, but we have established infection prevention controls that have been tested and are ready.
The bill essentially provides for the establishment of a fee structure for returned travellers. It is consistent, as I said from the outset, with the national cabinet decision earlier this year and with schemes already operating around the country. We know that aligning the co-payment with the resumption of flights into Victoria means the same expectation is placed on all persons quarantining in Victoria. It is equitable, it is fair and it is the right thing to do. As I was saying before, it does not make sense for Victoria not to charge. It would unfairly malign Victoria from a financial perspective, but it would also be in effect an inducement, I would say, or an incentive for people to come via Victoria as opposed to going via other states. As the charging of fees was agreed by all jurisdictions through national cabinet, international travellers—and this is important, so it is not like a surprise—will be expecting fees to be in place. I think that is also fair, that they know what is going to happen when they return to Victoria. The fees help ensure Victorians get home safely without other travellers trying to quarantine in Victoria to avoid paying costs in other jurisdictions.
Invoices—and I am just being really precise about this so everyone is very clear about how it is going to operate—will be issued after travellers have left mandatory quarantine. CQV will not start invoicing travellers until the new year. The decision to charge fees is a Victorian government decision made in line with the views of national cabinet and other states and territories. But the point that I was going to mention, because obviously different travellers will have different paying capacity, is the fee scheme will include fee waivers and consideration of hardship to limit unnecessary financial impact on vulnerable people and groups—this is important as well—and payment plants, so that people can allow and account for the various capacity of individuals but at the same time ensure that our government is able to cover the costs adequately of managing a very effective quarantine.
And I should note the amount of fees to be charged will be prescribed in regulations to be made and will be reasonably referable to the costs associated with quarantine—for example, accommodation, food and cleaning—and, further to that issue of equity, make sure that the fees charged are fair and reasonable and within expectations or reasonable expectations. The fees will be in line with those of other Australian jurisdictions and will likely be most closely based on fee schemes in New South Wales and South Australia, just to give you a bit of a comparator in this scenario. With regard to people who might be particularly vulnerable, they are able to apply for fee waivers, partial or full, and/or payment plans, and this helps to account for the different capacities of different people. The regulations will prescribe the criteria to be applied in considering applications for waivers and payment plans, and COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria will be the responsible agency for delivering the fee scheme.
Now, I should further note the reforms will be temporary, with relevant clauses to be repealed from the act on 31 December 2021, factoring in that we are working with a global pandemic. We do not have a vaccine as yet, so we cannot say there is a definitive end point to when COVID-19 will be over and done. However, we do have to have reasonable markers and check-in points to allow for schemes and the like to be managed appropriately. With regard to the regulations and where they are at, the regulations are currently being finalised and will prescribe the fees payable by returned travellers, and the fees will apply for Australian citizens and permanent residents as well as other international travellers and visitors. The regulations will set out the fee structure and amounts, including invoicing, payment plans and fee waivers, as I have referred to before.
At the risk of being laborious, I am just trying to be quite specific about what it will mean, because I realise that we are exploring this bill right here and now. It is urgent for good reason, because we do have travellers returning, and it is the right time, because Victorians have worked hard collectively to get us to this point where we are able to have Victorians returning to our wonderful state.
On that note, I think that fairly well acquits the core elements of what is being discussed here, because at the end of the day it is about charging a fee for people to stay in quarantine, to manage quarantine and to make sure that they are safe before they are returned to the community. With that I commend the bill to the house.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (20:50): In December 1973 Paul McCartney and Wings released a song called Band on the Run. I have got to tell you, if they were rereleasing it today, in December 2020, it would be called Government on the Run, because that is exactly what we are seeing from this hopeless mob today. At 7.43 yesterday morning flight UL604 from Colombo in Sri Lanka landed with 253 passengers in Melbourne—that was yesterday morning. Here we are today, over 24 hours since that flight arrived and a number of months since there was an opportunity to reform the hotel quarantine program, debating the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020. Now, did this come as a bit of a surprise to this government, that we were going to return international travellers to Australia after six months? Did it come as a bit of a surprise to this government that they had so stuffed up hotel quarantine last time that they needed to get something in place? And here they are doing it over 24 hours since the international passengers arrived. They have got absolutely no clue.
Let me just take us back to the original hotel quarantine, though. It relates to COVID’s impact on Australia. Twenty-eight thousand Australians were diagnosed with COVID cases, 20 500 of them in Victoria. Nine hundred and eight Australians have died as a result of COVID-19, 820 of them from Victoria. People lost their lives. People lost their jobs. Business collapsed. There was stress on and mental illness in families. There was family violence and there have been breakdowns of relationships. One in eight small businesses will probably never recover from this, and this government absolutely stuffed up hotel quarantine—and here we have got a whole lot of rushed legislation coming through tonight that does not answer any of the questions that need to be answered to make sure we have got a safe and secure system.
Let me give you an example: as recently as today Victoria Police members involved in the hotel quarantine security did not know where they had to sign on for their shifts, did not know where they had to sign on for their firearms and did not know where they had to return their firearms to at the end of the shift or where they had to sign off. If, for example, it was going to be at City West police station, if it was going to be at Melbourne Central—wherever the police station was—were they then going to interact with people who were not involved in the hotel quarantine program by handing over their firearms, receiving their firearms or signing on for their shifts?
As Ms Crozier quite rightly puts it, it is shambolic, and it is not a surprise. They did not wake up yesterday morning and go, ‘There’s that flight arriving from Colombo; we’d better do something about it’. They had not even thought this through. It is over 24 hours since this flight arrived, and now we are dealing with the issue? This mob are absolutely hopeless. They do not deserve to be the government of the day. They have stuffed up Victoria so badly—so badly—and then sought borrowings through this Parliament of an additional $24.5 billion to deal with their cost overruns under the blanket of, ‘We’re using it for COVID’. Absolute bulltish, it was.
That is why these amendments by Mr O’Donohue via the member for Caulfield, Mr Southwick, are so important, and that is why we support them, because it is up to this Parliament, despite the accusations of this Parliament interfering in government business, to fix up this bad bit of legislation that has been done by a government on the run. That is why today I support Mr O’Donohue’s amendments. That is why today members in this Parliament should all support these amendments, because this government needs a hand to get things right. We have to understand and we have to accept they have been incompetent and negligent in their duty. All members in this chamber today, when you are called upon to deal with these amendments, I strongly encourage you to support these, so at least we can get this somewhere right, after this hopeless government has presented it to us over 24 hours since the first flight arrived.
Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (20:55): I thought there might have been another speaker from the government, but I rise to speak to the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020.
Ms Symes: It’s urgent.
Ms CROZIER: The urgent bill, as the Leader of the Government has just interjected. And it is urgent, because the government needed to bring it into the Parliament in the lower house today, and then in the upper house we are debating it this evening, in the Council here, because they have been unprepared. They actually have not thought this through. As we have listened to the debate from Mr O’Donohue and Mr Ondarchie, it is very clear that the government have panicked in terms of pulling this together, because of the dates, the dates of the draft and when it has come in and after the briefing that was provided on Friday, the questions asked, and what was probably exposed in that. Lots of questions were raised, and here we have it that we have got a bill that is now going to, as the explanatory memorandum states, provide for fees for quarantine of people arriving in Victoria from overseas.
It is a retrospective operation. The retrospective operation is needed to align with the resumption of international flights to Victoria. Now, as Mr Ondarchie and Mr O’Donohue have stated, those flights resumed yesterday. They started to arrive early in the morning, 8 o’clock or thereabouts in the morning, but this was not in place. And it was not in place because the government has been so hopelessly chaotic in terms of this response around hotel quarantine, as every single Victorian knows. In fact every single Australian knows, because Victoria has paid the price for the catastrophic failings of that failed hotel quarantine, the hotel quarantine breaches and the contact tracing that followed those breaches earlier in the year.
Victoria has paid an enormous price for the government’s absolute mismanagement and incompetence in the hotel quarantine the first time around, and as others have said, the consequences have been tragic and indeed are going to have long-lasting impacts. Over 800 Victorians have died, tens of thousands of Victorians have lost their jobs and some will never recover their businesses. The mental health aspects are very profound. The number of people that have suicided because of the restrictions and the lockdown, the social isolation and the dislocation, the feeling of helplessness, the fear that was set in amongst the community by what the government consistently said and that contribution to the mental health of many not only adults but children I think are going to be known in months and years to come, because we have not actually seen the impacts of the harsh restrictions and the lockdown.
And the government wanted to of course control the virus at some point, because they could not do the contact tracing. So they had to control us, they had to lock us down and they had to put those harsh restrictions in place. Originally of course it was so that we could suppress the virus so as to assist in the health response by the public health system, so that they could cope. And I am certainly very supportive of that. I understand fully that that was required, but what we saw as an extension of the harsh restrictions and lockdowns, that was not the case. They were aiming for elimination, and we have had these double doughnuts and all the cheering and carry-on for weeks and weeks and weeks. I am not saying it is a bad thing Victoria has no cases. But what I am saying is the hardest restrictions and lockdowns and the extent of those restrictions and lockdowns have done immeasurable damage.
Mr Finn: Crushed business.
Ms CROZIER: Crushed business, Mr Finn—crushed hopes and dreams.
Mr Finn: Crushed lives—businesses, jobs, everything.
Ms CROZIER: Indeed. And that is what I say. I do not think we have seen the full effects of those restrictions and lockdowns. I think we are still to see those impacts.
Now, Mr O’Donohue, I think it was, outlined that it was a national cabinet decision in July. Everybody has known for months this has been coming, yet this government is so absolutely hopeless they have not been able to undertake this very important aspect. We have had the Coate inquiry running since July. Well, it was announced in July and has been running for all these months. We have got this farcical inquiry, I have got to say. It never recalled the witnesses that it should have to get to the bottom of exactly who made the decision about private security. There was the collective amnesia that we saw from the bureaucrats, the ministers and the Premier himself.
Mr Finn interjected.
Ms CROZIER: Well, of course. You are right, Mr Finn. It has been farcical. It has been, absolutely. I think every Victorian has been underwhelmed by what has gone on with that inquiry, and of course it has been very conveniently kicked down the road to be reported on and finally delivered to the people of Victoria on 21 December, just four days before Christmas. We have had the interim report. It highlighted the hotel quarantine. That was weeks and weeks ago. The government announced they were going to have travellers return to Victoria weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and yet we have got this bill rushed into the house tonight, which demonstrates just how chaotic, shambolic, disorganised and hopeless the government has been in getting prepared to manage this COVID response.
So it has not just been this issue that we are speaking about tonight; it has been the entire response. I think in years to come when people do review what has gone on, when we do get the final reports on various things and when we do have a royal commission, the truth will come out. And that reminds me: Mr O’Donohue mentioned the Pinskier brothers, who ran the health response to the hotel quarantine. They did not have a tender. That is another contractor that was just provided tens of millions of dollars for that service. We saw what happen with the infection control. Over 200 Victorians had to be tested for HIV and other bloodborne diseases because of really sloppy processes that were in place, putting people at risk. They are in the hotel quarantine, and then they are exposed to bloodborne diseases, like I have just mentioned, because they did not have the proper infection control places processes in place—extraordinary. But what is even more extraordinary is that there are people in the community now being threatened. The Pinskier brothers are issuing letters of demand to Victorians who happened to share my speech from Hansard in which I asked about them in this place. That is also extraordinary.
A member interjected.
Ms CROZIER: Well, it is. It is intimidatory. It is outrageous. Why are they going around issuing these letters?
Mr O’Donohue: What are they hiding?
Ms CROZIER: What are they hiding, Mr O’Donohue? That again comes to the truth about what has gone on here. Victorians deserve to understand the truth about why they were awarded that contract, who awarded it to them and why it took months, as Mr O’Donohue articulated and spelt out, to even come to light in terms of when it was signed. This just again demonstrates how the government has operated throughout this crisis—what they have done, who they have rewarded in the process and the mistakes that have been made that have led to the most tragic and dire outcomes.
Mr Finn: Criminal incompetence.
Ms CROZIER: Well, they brought in the industrial manslaughter law, Mr Finn, and where is that WorkSafe investigation? What is happening with that?
Mr Finn: Ask the minister.
Ms CROZIER: Well, the minister is in here. I am hoping that she will be able to update the house at some point about that WorkSafe investigation, because if you are talking about negligence, if you are talking about what that bill was aiming to achieve, then this government would be right up there in it. So that will be very interesting to see.
Now, I will not say much more because others will want to speak, but I do want to urge members to support the amendments put forward by Mr O’Donohue. In conclusion, this is a rushed bill that demonstrates the government was caught on the hop. They have been absolutely hopeless from go to whoa. Victorians will not have confidence in anything this government does. They will be always cautious and very wary about everything they do around a COVID-19 response, because of the way they have mishandled it to date, up until today, again with this bill demonstrating just how hopeless they are. This is not what Victorians need. They have had enough. They have been through just such a huge, huge year unnecessarily—the only state in the country to go through the tragedy that we have gone through. It is one legacy that Daniel Andrews cannot and will not ever, ever forget.
Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (21:06): I would really like to see this quarantine system succeed, and not just for the safety of Victorians; I want it to succeed because we have seen what happens when there is an outbreak from the quarantine system. What we saw last time when the quarantine system failed was one of the greatest suppressions of human rights in Victorian history. We saw people literally locked in their homes for 23 hours a day for months on end, we saw schools shut down, we saw businesses destroyed, we saw a debt that will take—we have no idea how long this debt is going to take to pay off. My children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren—I do not know who is going to pay this debt off. No-one knows how long this is going to take. This is why I really want this quarantine system to succeed.
We are also in this strange limbo space at the moment where we have eliminated or at least suppressed the virus to a level where it is not transmitting within the community, which is great. But it is running rampant in the rest of the world. We have no treatment that is reliable, we have no vaccines available to us and so we have created this island. We have shut ourselves off from the rest of the world, and this is a tentative opening up to allow Australians to come back. When we talk about Australians coming back to their home, I think people forget that these are real people that have been suffering overseas in many cases. Some of them have contacted my office in desperation, in many cases knowing full well that there is little I can do about it other than make representations to the federal government. I have had people contact me that were due to be married. So they had a spouse visa—this sort of thing; they were due to come over from another country to come here and be married, they had all sorts of wonderful plans and now they are separated for God knows how long. I hope that some of these people that had these plans can now come here and live their lives together as they envisaged, although delayed.
However, when we saw the last quarantine failure what I hoped the government would have done was to put all efforts into building the systems and processes that would guarantee that it will be managed well. This is why I asked today in Parliament—I put a question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services—about what these are. Do you have documented processes? Can you release them to the public? I think the public needs to know how this is actually going to work. We have had this fail before. We do not want it to fail again. If these procedures are published, we can have some of the best minds in the country look at this, examine it and be critical of it. If there are problems with it, maybe they can refine these or offer suggestions to the government on how they might improve it.
This is what I thought the government was doing in the background, and undoubtedly they have been doing some of this. But then last week we got notified that there was an emergency bill that had to come through today because they had forgotten something—this is about the co-payments. Now, for people coming back here to contribute to the costs of quarantine sounds entirely reasonable to me. I do not think that is objectionable. We know that it is an expensive exercise to put someone in a hotel for a fortnight. We know that it is not fair for taxpayers and whoever is going to be eventually paying off this debt to be paying for that, so it is only fair that they contribute something. Similarly, the opposition’s amendments seem reasonable. There should be restrictions on who should get access to leniency on these payments if there is hardship or whatever, and so that seems reasonable as well.
The position that we are in, and I imagine everyone on the crossbench would be in, is that we have had such a short time to examine this. We have seen other bills come from the government where there have been mistakes or unintended consequences that we were not aware of, because we might not have engaged with other people, and we have not had time to engage with third parties on this.
Now, I know the opposition are a much larger party and they have many more resources at their disposal. Maybe they are much more confident with the way this bill is put together and they are confident enough to put amendments forward, but I do not see how anyone on the crossbench could have the resources at their disposal to do that sort of engagement and have that confidence. In fact the only thing that the crossbench can do is either say, ‘Well, we trust the government, we trust what they are doing and we just hope that they’re doing the right thing’, or, ‘We oppose it’.
These emergency procedures are meant to be for things that happen very suddenly, and then they are presented and there is no other option. But this should have been planned for months. I cannot see how this mismanagement is an emergency. Mismanagement is not our emergency. I cannot see how anyone on the crossbench could say in all confidence that they understand this bill, that they are confident it does what it says, that they have engaged with the right people to get their opinions on it. Similarly, I would like to support the opposition’s amendments to this, but I cannot support the amendments because we cannot be confident that we understand the bill in the first place. Therefore we cannot support the amendments either.
I really hope that the government has got it right. I really hope that the fact that this was presented as an emergency procedure and a bill in a rushed state is just an exception and is not typical of how this quarantine is going to be managed. I really hope that it is successful, but the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing it, and we will also be opposing the amendments.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (21:13): This bill is about consistency with other jurisdictions, and it is about delivering on a national cabinet outcome that the Prime Minister and other first ministers have all agreed to, so that is one area in which Mr O’Donohue and I agree. It is about a fair and equitable system of fees that contribute to this vitally important program. It is also a bill that is very, very narrow in its scope. It deals with the fees. In terms of the new quarantine system, the reset, that is quite separate. That has been happening leading up to today and beyond. This is a bill that is very, very narrow in its scope and application, and it is of course about fees for quarantine.
On parts of the amendments that Mr O’Donohue has put, essentially we differ and we will not support the amendments. Firstly, in terms of the fee rate, we think that it is better to line up with what is the case in terms of fees in New South Wales and South Australia as opposed to striking on this rate. The other point of difference of course is the eligibility. We think that it is overly complicated and will add to further costs and efforts in terms of the administration of the scheme.
In terms of other things that people have mentioned, in terms of the quarantine reset, obviously people are within their rights to talk about what they want, but this is actually a bill that is very, very narrow in scope. It is about quarantine fees and how they would apply.
Other people have also sort of talked about the urgent nature of this, but as Mr Limbrick has said, it is not as if people did not know about it. People knew that there was going to be an urgent motion, and in fact it was also in what is known as the blue paper for the Parliament’s business that was issued this morning. I think it is commonly known amongst almost all members, if not all members, that people have been asking all day, ‘What time do you think the quarantine bill will be coming to the upper house’—or the Council—‘today?’.
So there is no surprise. There are no tricks. There is none of that. The fact of the matter is the opposition has said that they will be supporting this bill, and I commend them for that. The fact is that we should just press on and get the work done, because people are flying in and we need to have a fee structure in place.
House divided on motion:
| Ayes, 35 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Hayes, Mr | Ratnam, Dr |
| Barton, Mr | Kieu, Dr | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Bath, Ms | Leane, Mr | Shing, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Lovell, Ms | Stitt, Ms |
| Crozier, Ms | Maxwell, Ms | Symes, Ms |
| Cumming, Dr | McArthur, Mrs | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Davis, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Taylor, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Terpstra, Ms |
| Erdogan, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Finn, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Patten, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Pulford, Ms | |
| Noes, 2 | ||
| Limbrick, Mr | Quilty, Mr | |
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (21:24)
Ms CROZIER: Minister, I would like to understand a little bit about doctors in the hotels. But firstly, there are 11 designated hotels, I understand, two of which are hot hotels. Could you please provide to the house a list of the hotels—the nine non-hot hotels and the two hot hotels?
Ms TIERNEY: Again, the purpose of clause 1 is to provide fees for quarantine. It is a very narrow bill, Deputy President, so I am very interested to see what your ruling might be in terms of the member’s question going to the location of quarantine hotels.
Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, this bill is about returned travellers in hotel quarantine. I think it is entirely within the scope of clause 1 to ask about the hotels and where they are. That is what I was asking, and I think for the purposes of this bill it is entirely reasonable to ask that. What have you got to hide?
Ms TIERNEY: Nothing.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. The bill does deal with the quarantining of people in hotels. Clause 1 we usually use for some broad-ranging questions, so I think that it is within the scope of this bill.
Ms TIERNEY: Thank you, Deputy President, and I asked that very question to get a feeling or an understanding as to exactly what degree of scope of questions you will be allowing this evening. So I have got that. Thank you very much. In terms of Ms Crozier, we certainly have not got anything to hide.
Ms Crozier interjected.
Ms TIERNEY: If you let me answer, Ms Crozier—
Ms Crozier: Oh, stern! Just answer the question, Minister.
Ms TIERNEY: If you are quiet, I might be able to. In terms of—
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, you have the call.
Ms TIERNEY: Thank you, Deputy President, for reminding the house that I have the call. In terms of accommodation facilities, there is the Atrium Palace, the Four Points at Melbourne Docklands, the Holiday Inn Melbourne Airport, the Holiday Inn Melbourne on Flinders, the InterContinental Melbourne The Rialto, the Mercure Welcome Melbourne, the Novotel Melbourne on Collins, the Novotel Melbourne South Wharf, Oaks on Lonsdale, Park Royal Melbourne Airport, Pan Pacific Melbourne, Pullman Melbourne on Swanston, Stamford Plaza Melbourne, Sumner House and Wyndhamere Motel—all of which I think is on apps and can be referred to in any newspaper app.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you for that response, Minister. I think that is all the house was asking. If I could go on, I am just interested to understand—Healthcare Australia is responsible for providing the health services within the hotels. I understand that the Alfred hospital is going to be dealing with the two hot hotels, but Healthcare Australia will be overseeing healthcare services within those other hotels that you have just referenced. Could I ask: how many doctors have been employed to look after returned travellers in all of those hotels? What is the number and the FTE?
Ms TIERNEY: In all of the hotels?
Ms CROZIER: Yes, please.
Ms TIERNEY: I am advised that we do not have that level of detail in the house, and that is primarily because this bill is very narrow in scope and it largely deals with the fees that would apply to quarantine.
Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Deputy President, once again I would say that this is relevant to the bill because we are talking about hotel quarantine. I think every Victorian wants to understand that processes are in place, that we have got the adequate support in place. Despite this being in relation to returned travellers who are paying fees, certainly this hotel quarantine does relate to those that will be assisting those returned travellers when they come back to Australia, so I would argue that it is within the scope of the bill.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am sorry, Ms Crozier, it is up to the minister how she wants to answer. I cannot instruct her to answer.
Ms CROZIER: Thank you, Deputy President, for that guidance. I think it is incredibly disappointing but also alarming, Minister, that you cannot provide the level of response. So I will ask another question: have the rosters for doctors been filled as yet—to be put into these hotels?
Ms TIERNEY: Again, these are matters that the organisation that has been set up is dealing with, and again they do not pertain to the aspects of this bill.
Ms CROZIER: Anybody who is watching this debate I think will be very alarmed by the minister’s non-answers in relation to these questions. If the minister does not know or if they have not got the answers, then that is all we are asking for. It is clear that the minister does not have these answers. So could I ask then, Minister: how many hotels are now in operation as we speak?
Ms TIERNEY: Again, I have outlined those hotels that have been provided to me. I read them out only moments ago.
Ms CROZIER: Well, this is about people arriving back into quarantine. Clause 1 is certainly talking about providing for fees, but it is for the quarantine of people arriving into Victoria from overseas. These are people who are going to require or may require medical attention because they are in hotel quarantine for a range of reasons—whether it is mental health, whether it is physical health, whether it is because they have COVID-19. So I find it disappointing that in terms of trying to understand exactly the preparation around what is happening with this program you are unwilling to provide the answers. I will ask my colleague Mr O’Donohue to ask his questions, but before I do, Minister, could you provide to the house—this is retrospective; as Mr Ondarchie said in his contribution, a flight arrived from I think it was Sri Lanka yesterday—
Mr Ondarchie: Colombo.
Ms CROZIER: Colombo yesterday. So at what point will those people be billed for their fees?
Ms TIERNEY: Well, firstly, Minister Neville took the Assembly through a number of elements of the quarantine reset today, so it is not about hiding or not addressing or speaking to different things. We are very open on exactly what we are doing in terms of the reset quarantine arrangements that are in place. In terms of what people who are coming from overseas need to know about what the arrangements are, I am advised that there is a commonwealth website that people are directed to, and from that, Ms Crozier, there is a link to the relevant state jurisdictions in respect to what specific arrangements are required per state.
Ms CROZIER: Minister, I asked at what point those people will be billed. Do you not know? Could you please tell the house at what point those people will be billed?
Ms TIERNEY: I am advised it will be early next year.
Ms CROZIER: In January or February? When?
Ms TIERNEY: Early next year.
Ms CROZIER: Minister, that is again a very vague answer. Early next year—it could be January, February, March, early next year. Are the systems set up as yet to be putting these bills through for those returned travellers to pay the fee?
Ms TIERNEY: This is a bill that will enable the set-up of the system, and I am advised that it will be largely following the system that has been set up in New South Wales.
Ms CROZIER: Well, Minister, I am looking at a number of areas in relation to what you are saying this bill sets up. You have said that you are going to bill returned travellers with a fee. You have set it out in your regulations: it is $3000 per person and then $1000 for their partner or whoever and then subsequent children have a fee as well, based on the New South Wales model. In this bill clause 5 talks about a quarantined person, a relevant invoice and a specified place of detention. So the relevant invoice is what I am talking about. Are the programs set up to be able to invoice these people?
Ms TIERNEY: Yes. People will be invoiced at the location, but not this first group. Once the other planes start coming in there will be an invoice and they will be required to provide—
Ms CROZIER: Minister, I take it from that that it actually has not been set up, that you are in the process of setting up. So it has not been set up—as people are returning to Australia, to Victoria, nothing has been set up.
Ms TIERNEY: Look, the fact of the matter is that this is a new administrative system. COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV) is the new entity that will have oversight of that and they are undertaking a range of administrative arrangements so that fees can be charged and we can work through the actual invoicing of those that are within the quarantine system.
Ms CROZIER: Thanks for that response, Minister. Minister, when did the government decide to set up this process?
Ms TIERNEY: Can I ask Ms Crozier what specifically she is asking?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, would you care to clarify, please, for the minister?
Ms CROZIER: I know you are pretty defensive. You are standing there with your arms crossed, Ms Tierney. I ask—
Mr O’Donohue: On a point of order, Deputy President, Ms Crozier has the call. Only one person is supposed to be on their feet at a time.
Ms TIERNEY: After all the interjections I have received tonight. Goodness me!
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think he was referring to you being on your feet, Minister.
Ms CROZIER: Do you want me to repeat the question, because you just asked me, or are you going to get the answer?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you want the clarification or not?
Ms TIERNEY: I am happy to receive the clarification.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, would you care to—
Ms CROZIER: But the minister is not in her place.
Ms TIERNEY: As most people would understand, the absolute focus of this government has been on dealing with setting up CQV and working out the chain of command. All of the other elements that are incredibly important are sitting also under the responsibility of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Lisa Neville. There has absolutely been priority given to making sure that there is a proper reset of the new quarantine system. So that has taken up most of the focus of the government.
In terms of the notion of fees and fee setting, we have already agreed that that was agreed at the national cabinet some time ago, but it is this state that has been busy working through how we will have a very integrated and a very accountable quarantine system in this state—one that clearly is already seeing the benefits in being able to bring COVID numbers completely down.
I think that everyone, regardless of political colour, would agree that what we have been able to achieve here in Victoria, what Victorians have been able to achieve, is close to miraculous in fact, because essentially no other country has been able to do what we have been able to do. I think that is what is missing here tonight. People are wanting to try and pointscore on all sorts of other things, and this is just a straightforward bill about the application of a fee—
Members interjecting.
Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I would actually like to hear the minister’s response. These constant interjections are very loud, and I cannot hear the answers. I am very interested in hearing the answers. I know you might not be, Ms Crozier, but the minister is entitled to respond and be heard in silence. Deputy President, I would appreciate your ruling on that.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Terpstra. If we could just hear the minister in silence, that would help. Minister, have you finished your answer?
Ms TIERNEY: Yes.
Ms CROZIER: I have to concur with Ms Terpstra. I was finding it difficult because the minister was not speaking into the microphone, but nevertheless in the bit I did hear the minister did not actually answer my question about when it was set up. I know that you have ruled previously, Deputy President, that you cannot direct the minister on how to respond, so I respect that, but it is pretty clear that the government forgot to do this part of the process.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will take that as a comment.
Mr HAYES: I just have a couple of questions, Minister. Most of the opposition’s amendments are along the lines of fee waivers, and I just wanted to ask the minister, firstly: under what circumstances does the government see fee waivers being granted, or what is the purpose of having the provision for the waiver of fees?
Ms TIERNEY: Thank you for your question. We see it in a more general sense. Where people have already got a commonwealth benefit of some sort, that is the first benchmark, so to speak, but beyond that there are people obviously that are not on commonwealth benefits that are doing it tough for a whole variety of reasons. We would seek that they make application, and CQV will deal with those applications. The point of difference between what we are proposing and what the amendment is seeking is that the opposition’s amendment will require each and every case to be basically case managed, and we think that that would take an inordinate amount of administrative time by CQV when they actually need to be more focused on the quarantine system in place and not just the administrative and financial arrangements that are entered into.
Mr HAYES: Thank you, Minister. Further to that, in some correspondence that I was given today about the amendments it said that New South Wales had recovered something like only 10 per cent of the charges that they were intending to levy. I am just wondering: do you expect, with the way the fee waivers are intended to be granted, that we will only be recovering a small amount of their cost—that the fee waivers will be fairly widespread?
Ms TIERNEY: As I said, we want a fair and equitable system in place. I cannot deal with hypotheticals, but we want a fair and equitable system so that those that are in difficult situations do have an opportunity to make application and to prove that they are in financial difficulty and cannot do it. We also believe, as I said before, that examining someone’s financial circumstances on a case-by-case basis, in terms of everyone that comes into the country being examined, is just too onerous. We believe that the efforts of CQV, their primary purpose, should be about managing the quarantine, not being turned into a debt-verification office.
Mr HAYES: Following up on that, if fee waivers are granted then the taxpayer is picking up the cost of the quarantine, and we see a lot of pressure for the return of international students and skilled workers. Will fee waivers be available for the importation of large amounts of students and international workers? Will the fee waivers be available to people like that, not only Australian citizens?
Ms TIERNEY: The first thing I would say is that we are seeking a level of consistency across the jurisdictions. Otherwise if you have unevenness it means that people will soon find out what state might favour their personal circumstances over and above others, so that is the first point. In terms of international students, that is an issue that Minister Pakula is dealing with. That is in his portfolio area, and he and his department have been dealing with the universities on an ongoing basis and in a very intense way, so I think that it is not appropriate for me to comment. Those negotiations are ongoing. In terms of people who are potentially coming here to work, again, there would need to be national consistency in respect to that because it will be turned into an undercutting exercise.
Dr RATNAM: Minister, I would like to ask a couple more questions on waivers—a slightly different angle, but it would be good to get some clarification. I understand that some of the detail will come in regulations in the coming weeks and I understand why that is the case, but there is a bit of concern around fees and some of the waiver conditions, so I thought it would be good to try to get as much clarification as possible to provide reassurance to people. In terms of where I am coming from, the primary concern is that fees do not operate as a barrier to people returning home, so that is the intent behind my questions—to get some clarification for people who might be a bit worried about it being a barrier. We have all heard stories of people being stuck overseas for months, trying to get flights, having them cancelled; of exorbitant fares; of people losing jobs, so I am keen to understand in more detail the operation of the exemption and waiver system. Minister, can you speak about whether the government will guarantee that healthcare card holders will be exempt from fees?
Ms TIERNEY: Yes, that absolutely will fall within the concession card holders remit.
Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Minister. Much appreciated. Secondly, can the government confirm that circumstances such as the length of time someone has been stuck trying to get home, the cost of flights, financial burdens to do with being stuck overseas, employment status and the like will all be considered in relation to granting fee waivers?
Ms TIERNEY: And partial fee waivers too, Dr Ratnam. Once someone has submitted their application they will obviously outline their circumstances and there will be an assessment made in respect to that. But can I say that we welcome people coming home, and the more we can have home the better, for all sorts of reasons. So we will not be trying to make things difficult or create further barriers for people. It is really important to get people back home with their family and friends as soon as possible, but in a safe way.
Dr RATNAM: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that reassurance. Will there be time lines within which decisions on exemptions will be made? Here I am concerned about the stress of waiting to find out, if it takes weeks, or how long it will take to be assured that a waiver could be considered. And what efforts will be made to ensure a quick turnaround of these requests?
Ms TIERNEY: People will be advised as soon as possible, and also of course when they receive the invoice after the quarantine the steps will be outlined for them as well there.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, when does the government anticipate that regulations will be declared?
Ms TIERNEY: Work obviously is well underway. We believe that it is imminent, but there needs to be final sign-off from parliamentary counsel and of course ministerial approval.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister. I just want to follow a couple of different issues Ms Crozier touched on. You kindly provided a list of the hotels that will be used. Will this model replicate the first quarantine system, where hotels were put on a retainer basis even if they were not housing guests? So for example the Torquay Hotel received approximately half a million dollars and never received a hotel quarantine person. Are there any hotels in this model on a similar retainer model?
Ms TIERNEY: So with the ones that I read out there were 11. I have been assured that they have complied and have reached benchmarks of very strict compliance of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. They will be used in this reset, and we expect that their facilities will be used by those that are returning to Australia.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister. So there are no others that are on retainer, separate to those 11 you mentioned, that are being paid to be on stand-by, in effect? Is that what you are saying?
Ms TIERNEY: This is broader than what the actual scope of the bill is. I am advised that the 11 that I read out are the facilities that will be used.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, are we in agreement that the model that has been contemplated, as envisaged by national cabinet, is in effect a fee-for-service model, so a cost-recovery model is the fundamental foundation of the hotel quarantine charging?
Ms TIERNEY: It is fee for service in a general sense because of the seeking of a level of co-contribution for those involved, but as you know and particularly if one was listening to the debate in the Assembly this afternoon, the government continues to make significant contributions over and above what the person in quarantine is making, and they go to things like transport, medical assistance and meals amongst others.
Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.
Ms TIERNEY: Pursuant to standing order 4.08(1)(b), I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I suppose, in light of your answer, Minister, any questions relating to cost are actually relevant to the bill because, as you just said, it is a partial cost recovery model, so it is directly on point to the bill itself. Minister, was there a competitive tender process undertaken for the delivery of medical and other services to the new hotel quarantine program?
Ms TIERNEY: So in relation to procurement the COVID accommodation program is being supported by experts in their field. We have not cut corners. We have partnered with Alfred Health, who are world leaders in infection prevention and control. We have also partnered with Healthcare Australia, who have a wealth of experience in providing healthcare services for mandatory quarantine, given that they also provide service to New South Wales and they work in the gold standard New South Wales model that those opposite continue to cite.
In terms of hotel procurement, as I have said, we have engaged in a constructive and considered way with the hotel industry, and that is how the 11 motels were arrived at. The department went through a rigorous contracting process, which is in line with the government’s crisis procurement processes, to select providers that can meet the objectives of the program, which is about mitigating the risk of infection to our community and staff. Of course the program has certain critical requirements and assessments, so for hotels that includes reviewing capacity, hotel location, layout and suitability for the IPC and staff and resident safety, ventilation and security, amongst others.
Each hotel site has been selected following extensive consultation and is approved following four layers of review: assessment and sign-off by infection control experts, security and emergency management review, review of operational executives and final sign-off by the commissioner that the hotel and its services can meet the objectives of the program.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Minister, noting that the government has used the crisis procurement processes and therefore bypassing many of the normal requirements of government procurement, I assume that means that a competitive tender model has not been adopted. Rather it is a direct engagement—a one-on-one negotiation-type arrangement; is that an accurate description?
Ms TIERNEY: So the primary purpose of procurement, particularly in this sort of situation with COVID-19, the absolute focus is assurances and demonstration that hotels can stand up to the very strict benchmarks of the IPC, and that is how they were selected.
Mr O’DONOHUE: One would hope that would be a driving or key determinant, Minister, but that does not answer the question about whether there was a tender process or a competitive process or whether it was a direct procurement model, where individual hotels, medical services et cetera were negotiated on an individual basis. Can you answer that question, please?
Ms TIERNEY: I outlined the process that was adopted, Mr O’Donohue.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Are any of the entities associated with the Pinskier brothers involved in the provision of medical or other services to hotel quarantine?
Ms TIERNEY: That has nothing to do with the bill.
Mr O’DONOHUE: On a point of order, Deputy President, it is directly relevant to the bill. The minister herself referred to the provision of medical services in a previous answer. She said in a previous answer that cost recovery is a partial driver of the model which the government is employing. Trying to understand the value-for-money proposition and how the government has sought to deliver value for money is therefore directly relevant to the bill.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr O’Donohue, I cannot direct the minister how to answer. I will give the minister another opportunity if she wants to provide any further answer to that question. The minister is saying no.
Mr O’DONOHUE: It is unfortunate the government, given the cloud associated with the previous award of contracts to those entities, is silent when given an opportunity to provide clarification. Minister, are Victoria Police billing the hotel quarantine authority for the provision of its services?
Ms TIERNEY: No.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Are unsworn Victoria Police Victorian public service staff involved in the hotel quarantine on site?
Ms TIERNEY: No.
Mr O’DONOHUE: Has the government considered the use of robots as part of the surveillance operations at the hotels, noting I understand there are now models where robots can temperature check people and they can record exact movements of hotel guests outside of their rooms—exact time and the like. It is technology that has been deployed in other jurisdictions internationally. Has that been considered as part of the hotel quarantine model now in Victoria?
Ms TIERNEY: No.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, apropos of Mr O’Donohue’s question about where the costs for Victoria Police come from, you said they will not be billed back to the hotel quarantine program. Does the money for the police allocation come out of Victoria Police’s existing budget or is there an extra allocation for them that comes out of the quarantine program?
Ms TIERNEY: Obviously VicPol are absolutely embedded in the process. They are part of it, and they will continue to be paid by VicPol.
Mr ONDARCHIE: That was not quite my question, Minister. The costs for operating VicPol in the hotel quarantine program are normally outside the scope of the budget allocation for VicPol’s annual operating costs, so are the costs associated with VicPol’s allocation and the costs for that coming out of their current operating budget or is there a separate allocation being made through the quarantine program to fund those extra resources?
Ms TIERNEY: It is out of their operating budget, which is there for the very purpose of dealing with issues as they arise. Obviously COVID-19 and the quarantine measures that are being adopted are a response that VicPol are assisting with.
Mr ONDARCHIE: So does the government acknowledge, Minister, that given this was an unbudgeted program for Victoria Police, it will remove from Victoria Police other opportunities to use that money operationally effectively?
Ms TIERNEY: No.
Mr ONDARCHIE: So the government does not acknowledge it, is that what you are saying? So just to clarify, the government does not acknowledge that that is an effect on Victoria Police. Is that what the minister is saying?
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister answered no. Minister, did you want to add anything?
Ms TIERNEY: No.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, are you able to alert the house as to how many of the departmental staff have been allocated to formulating this hotel quarantine fees bill?
Ms TIERNEY: Can I have the last word of that question?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Bill.
Ms TIERNEY: Can you repeat it, then?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Okay, sure. Minister, are you able to advise the house how many departmental staff have been involved in delivering the hotel quarantine fees bill to us today?
Ms TIERNEY: Which department?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, I am assuming it is coming from the newly allocated area that has been created, but that would be your advice to us.
Ms TIERNEY: You are asking the question, I am just seeking clarification whether you are talking about CQV. Are you talking about other departments? I am not quite sure.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, how many public servants have been involved in working up this bill to deliver to this house today?
Ms TIERNEY: This bill? The answer is no more than usual and whatever it takes.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Yes, that might be a statement about the effectiveness of this government, but nonetheless. Minister, if that is the case—as many as it takes, according to your words—why then has this bill arrived more than 24 hours after the first international flights have arrived?
Ms TIERNEY: I have already answered that question.
Mr ONDARCHIE: No, you have not.
Ms TIERNEY: Yes, I have, earlier.
Mr ONDARCHIE: You have not answered any questions half the time.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, do you have any further questions?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Why couldn’t this bill arrive before the first lot of international flights arrived?
Ms TIERNEY: I have already answered this question. You might not have been listening, but I have already answered that question.
Mr ONDARCHIE: But you did not, that is the problem.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, through the Chair, not across the chamber.
Mr ONDARCHIE: I would just like to make a closing statement if that is okay. This government are highly inefficient. They are highly amateurish in their role. They have known for over six months that at some point we were going to reopen the borders to international travellers, and here we are more than 24 hours after the first fight arrived—and let me tell you, Minister, the flight from Dubai to Melbourne is due in about 58 minutes. There is another lot coming—there are four international flights on their way here. I find it outrageous, as do the people of Victoria, that after all this time and after the first lot arrived well and truly more than 24 hours ago you are still trying to work out how to do this. This government are amateur at best, and—
Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am waiting to hear a question. That is a statement.
Mr ONDARCHIE: It does not have to be a question. Read the standing orders.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, we are on clause 1. It is possible for people to make a statement.
Ms Terpstra: I am waiting to hear a question about the content of the bill.
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, I am trying to answer Ms Terpstra’s question. We are on clause 1. It can be a statement. It only has to be relevant to the bill; it does not have to be a question.
Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Deputy President. It is unfortunate, to pick up the minister’s words, that Ms Terpstra was not listening, because clearly I am talking about the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill.
Ms Terpstra: I have been listening, don’t worry. Where is your question?
Mr ONDARCHIE: There does not have to be a question under the standing orders, I am able to make a statement, and your interjection clearly sums up the aspect of this government. They are so interested in defending their position and not looking after Victorians that it is becoming sickening.
Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (22:15)
Mr O’DONOHUE: I move:
1. Clause 3, page 4, after line 4 insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under subsection (1)(a) must include the following circumstances as circumstances that COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria must have regard to in making a decision under section 259 in relation to a quarantined person who is an adult—
(a) whether the person is an Australian citizen or permanent resident within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2017 of the Commonwealth; and
(b) whether the person—
(i) has a weekly income (from all sources) at the time the person makes an application under section 259 of not more than $1,903 per week before tax; or
(ii) is part of a couple who are both quarantined persons and the weekly income of the couple (from all sources) at the time an application for the couple is made under section 259 is not more than $1,903 per week before tax; and
(c) whether the person—
(i) has not more than $10 000 in cash or in savings deposited with an ADI (excluding term deposits) at the time the person makes an application under section 259; or
(ii) is part of a couple who are both quarantined persons and the couple has not more than $10 000 (in total) in cash or in savings deposited with an ADI (excluding term deposits) at the time an application for the couple is made under section 259; and
(d) whether the person—
(i) lost their employment on or after 16 March 2020 and was not employed at any time before they departed for Australia; or
(ii) was employed during the applicable period and their weekly working hours or weekly wage or salary, at the end of that period, was, as the case requires—
(A) 20% less than their weekly working hours than at the start of that period; or
(B) 20% less than their weekly wage or salary than at the start of that period; or
(iii) was a sole trader whose business was suspended on or after 16 March 2020 and did not restart before the person departed for Australia; or
(iv) carried on business as a sole trader during the applicable period and the business’s turnover at the end of that period was 20% less than at the start of that period.”.
2. Clause 3, page 4, after line 5 insert—
“applicable period means the period—
(a) commencing on 16 March 2020; and
(b) ending on—
(i) in the case of a quarantined person employed as at that commencement, the day on which the person ceases employment for the purpose of departing for Australia; and
(ii) in the case of a quarantined person carrying on business as a sole trader as at that commencement, the day on which the person ceases carrying on that business for the purpose of departing for Australia;”.
3. Clause 3, page 4, after line 7 insert—
“quarantined person has the same meaning as in Part 14;”.
The issue of the robustness of the payment schedules and the framework for the granting of concessions is an important one. As I referred to in my second-reading speech, Mr Southwick’s research reveals in some other jurisdictions only 10 per cent of the invoices are paid. We want a fair and equitable system, noting that this bill has come to the Parliament after the program has recommenced. It is important, we think, that the Parliament provide clarity about how that operates. I note Mr Hayes’s and Dr Ratnam’s interest in this issue as well, and their questions. So we seek to move these amendments to provide that clarity, to provide an equitable balance, in the interests of the state and in the interests of those who need support and help, and I therefore move my amendments.
Ms TIERNEY: I have already dealt with this and outlined the government’s position in relation to it. We will be opposing Mr O’Donohue’s amendments.
Committee divided on amendments:
| Ayes, 12 | ||
| Bach, Dr | Davis, Mr | McArthur, Mrs |
| Bath, Ms | Finn, Mr | O’Donohue, Mr |
| Crozier, Ms | Hayes, Mr | Ondarchie, Mr |
| Cumming, Dr | Lovell, Ms | Rich-Phillips, Mr |
| Noes, 25 | ||
| Barton, Mr | Maxwell, Ms | Stitt, Ms |
| Bourman, Mr | Meddick, Mr | Symes, Ms |
| Elasmar, Mr | Melhem, Mr | Tarlamis, Mr |
| Erdogan, Mr | Patten, Ms | Taylor, Ms |
| Gepp, Mr | Pulford, Ms | Terpstra, Ms |
| Grimley, Mr | Quilty, Mr | Tierney, Ms |
| Kieu, Dr | Ratnam, Dr | Vaghela, Ms |
| Leane, Mr | Shing, Ms | Watt, Ms |
| Limbrick, Mr | ||
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to; clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (22:25): I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (22:25): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.
Adjournment
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (22:25): I move:
That the house do now adjourn.
Shepparton bypass
Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (22:25): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and again it concerns the elusive business case for the Shepparton bypass project. The action that I seek from the minister is for her to immediately release the business case for the Shepparton bypass project, a business case that was funded from the 2017–18 state budget, and if she will not release it provide a definitive date that the business case will be released to the public. Members in this place will be well and truly aware of my wish to see the Shepparton bypass project finally commence construction. This is a vital piece of infrastructure that the Greater Shepparton community has been waiting for for many decades. Stage 1 of the Shepparton bypass project will not only significantly reduce heavy vehicle traffic flows through the Shepparton CBD but also dramatically improve freight movements to Melbourne and other parts of regional Victoria and interstate. Stage 1 will also provide the long-anticipated second river crossing between Shepparton and Mooroopna, easing congestion on the Peter Ross-Edwards Causeway.
Despite the importance of the bypass project to the Goulburn Valley community, the Andrews Labor government has refused to contribute funding to get construction underway. Since the government provided $10.2 million for the project’s business case in the 2017–18 state budget, Labor have shown no interest in providing any further investment in the Shepparton bypass. Three further budgets have been delivered since then—and not 1 cent from this government. In fact all they have provided is one excuse after another: ‘The business case is complex. The feds need to contribute their share of the funding. The feds’ contribution is not enough. The business case is complex’—one excuse after another from the minister, and around and around and around it goes. The business case was to be released in 2019, but the latest from Jacinta Allan was that it would be released in December this year. Well, here we are in mid-December and still no business case. I wonder what the excuse will be this time. The federal government has committed $208 million for this project in their 2019–20 budget, and we are still waiting on the state. Release the business case now, Minister, and let us get on with this vital infrastructure project.
Northern Metropolitan Partnership
Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (22:28): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Suburban Development, the Honourable Shaun Leane. The coronavirus pandemic has impacted all of Victoria, including the northern suburbs. However, it is so important that we do not just snap back after the coronavirus pandemic but are continually making improvements to our local communities. I am really excited by the Northern Metropolitan Partnership and the work and investments that will be occurring within my electorate to improve and strengthen our local communities. I have heard from so many people in the Northern Metropolitan Region since I began in this place about their priorities and concerns in their suburbs. So can the minister please provide me an update on the work of the Northern Metropolitan Partnership that has been conducted this year, in particular the community engagement aspects of that work. And as a new member for this region, I am keen to learn more about the work the partnership is undertaking in collating the priorities of the community in the Northern Metropolitan Region.
Wild horse control
Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (22:29): My matter this evening is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is for a new and comprehensive count of brumby populations in the alpine areas, the Bogong High Plains and the Barmah forest. The issue of brumbies is one that is contentious both in the Parliament and in the community. It is somewhat stating the obvious, as this has been discussed at some length, but the issue is divisive. Some believe the brumbies do not belong there and feel shooting is the best solution. Some are attracted to the history and romance of the iconic Australian brumby, which leads to the notion that, because of their role in war and their historical value in white colonisation, the remnant horse populations deserve protection and should continue to live where they are.
My view is different to both, in that I agree with the removal of them to protect precious native ecosystems, but I will never agree to killing them. We brought them here, just as we introduced every other cloven-footed animal to this country. There are none that are native, and they are all damaging these environments. It is because we did this that it is clear we have a responsibility for them that goes beyond just shooting our way out of trouble. What is also clear is that the number of brumbies is hotly contested, with claims the numbers are being wildly exaggerated by authorities. There seems a simple solution to that. Will the minister halt all shooting of brumbies, whether planned or underway, and order an independent count, with representatives of all sides working alongside each other so there can at least be consensus on their numbers?
Bellarine railway reserve vegetation removal
Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (22:31): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The Geelong Steam Preservation Society, also known as the Bellarine Railway, is a volunteer-run tourism business that provides heritage steam train rides between Drysdale and Queenscliff. They are responsible for the management of vegetation on the railway reserve. In April this year Bellarine Railway began clearing vegetation to reinstate a fire access track on the reserve when an officer from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) showed up and insisted that the maintenance was essentially illegal. This work was the clearing and maintenance of a pre-existing fire and rail corridor maintenance track, which had become overgrown and impassable, to allow safe access for railway maintenance vehicles and emergency services vehicles.
Bellarine Railway have subsequently written on a number of occasions to DELWP explaining why they are in fact allowed to undertake this removal of vegetation but have not received a response. Since May there has been a standstill, with no clearance having been able to take place. Bellarine Railway could have had all the vegetation removed and could have mulched it in a week, but the department stands in their way. Numerous landowners in the area are deeply concerned about the potential fire risk. The railway used to act as a firebreak, but it now poses a significant fire risk for the area, with overgrown and dead vegetation.
This situation has all the markers of an incompetent Labor government. An important tourism business is being stifled by government control, unable to restore the formerly scenic views from the train rides by removing the vegetation. Bureaucrats are seemingly more concerned about saving vegetation than saving lives and property by mitigating fire danger, and a volunteer organisation is being antagonised and ignored by a government department. So the action I seek is for the minister to ensure that DELWP immediately enters negotiations with Bellarine Railway over the removal of vegetation from the railway reserve, thereby ensuring this fire risk is immediately removed before the summer gets even worse.
Victoria Police database
Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (22:33): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. IBAC’s investigations, particularly into police misconduct and corruption, have consistently identified information misuse as a key element in misconduct and corruption. During an investigation in 2017 IBAC found that a detective leading senior constable accessed the police database for police information about their associates on numerous occasions, some of whom they met at strip clubs, brothels or through the sex work industry. On at least one occasion the officer accessed and then disclosed police information to an employee of a strip club. On another occasion the officer accessed and used police information to gain the personal details of a sex worker who they had previously hired and lent money to. At the time, the anti-corruption commission also found that Victoria Police does not proactively check for misuse of information. This issue has not gone away. An officer was convicted in July 2020 for his unauthorised access to police information, which was only detected as part of another investigation.
Victorians should have access to police records with information about themselves, and not just what is in their records but how often these records have been accessed. Freedom-of-information legislation does allow Victorians a technical right to access their own records, but it also gives police enormous leeway to reject access to these records for pretty much any excuse they choose to invent. In the past in Queensland, as I mentioned recently, we have seen freedom-of-information requests reveal that records for Renee Eaves, a swimwear model, were accessed hundreds of times by police without authorisation. This information was used as part of a successful lawsuit against the police, and since then police have begun to reject requests for information based on the number of times a record has been accessed.
But police are not only accessing the records of people they know. IBAC also recognises that police can access records about high-profile individuals, such as government ministers or celebrities, and that this kind of access represents a serious corruption risk. Despite these findings, the government has decided to restrict IBAC funding and hamper its ability to investigate and detect corruption. The police should always be open to scrutiny. The action I seek is that I call on the minister to allow Victorians to be given free access to records that police hold with information about themselves, and not just what is on the records but also how often the records have been accessed.
Bushfire preparedness
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (22:36): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in the other place, and it concerns the fire risk to homes near the Gresswell Hill nature reserve in Macleod and the maintenance of firebreaks between the reserve and the residential housing. In the last fire season I witnessed how the fire in the Plenty Gorge threatened residents’ homes in Mill Park and was a frightening experience for many in the local area. Residents have contacted my office and reported that there is a significant amount of ground fuel in the habitat link in the Gresswell Hill reserve which would pose a major fire threat to housing in Gresswell Road, Lookout Rise, Crestwood Avenue and Bella Vista Close. They also reported the risk to Coolidge Wynd, Hendricks Mews and Sherman Mews.
I thank local residents, such as Vicky, Rob, Margaret and Gary, who have written to me and spoken about it. They are concerned for their homes, and they want the firebreaks between the reserve and the residential housing to be strengthened because of the fuel load in the reserve and the evidence of people lighting camp fires near the local water tank. The action I seek from the minister is to direct Parks Victoria or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to do a risk assessment on the danger of fire to the residential housing and to work with the local council to find a solution to keep those residents safe—quickly.
Cherry Creek youth justice facility
Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (22:37): My matter is for the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery. However, as this issue potentially overlaps a number of different portfolios, I would understand and appreciate it if he chose to redirect some or all of it to another minister on my behalf. I raise the matter following some recent emails that I have received from a tenderer for the supply of building products on a significant current project. I understand the minister may also have received the same or very similar emails. What was conveyed in those emails is that at the new youth justice facility being built at Cherry Creek certain opportunities for participation have not been afforded to Victorian manufacturing and/or construction companies.
In particular it has become apparent that the main facade feature of the new buildings at Cherry Creek is derived from a product that is actually manufactured in Queensland. This is despite the fact that a very similar style and quality of product is available from at least one Victorian manufacturer. On the basis of what has been written in the emails, the Victorian product is also reportedly less expensive and comes from the same range of products that have been approved for and are being used on works on the Chisholm Road prison project at Lara. In fact the emailer makes quite a number of interesting points in relation to these issues. Many of them centre on how this decision to seemingly favour the Queensland project tallies with the government’s policies and legislation on local industry participation. As the minister will of course be aware, the Local Jobs First policy requires the specific identification of the prospective use of local Victorian content as part of tenders for all state government projects of at least $1 million in value in regional Victoria and, as is the case with Cherry Creek, at least $3 million in metropolitan Melbourne.
I do not intend at the moment to make any judgements about what may or may not be happening in the use of local content in the Cherry Creek project. Instead I seek action from the minister in the form of clarification of two key interrelated issues. To be more specific about that, I am wondering if he could indicate the overall percentage of content on the Cherry Creek project that is made in Victoria and, as an important part of that, why the Local Jobs First policy requirements were apparently not exercised in favour of the Victorian facade feature manufacturer.
Hume City Council
Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (22:40): I wish to raise a matter in the adjournment this evening for the attention of the Minister for Local Government. Exactly one week ago the Hume council was having a good old time with the ratepayers money in that particular municipality. They were having a knees-up, a booze-up, a nosh-up. They were having a right old time. One hundred and twenty of their closest friends got together to celebrate those councillors who had been recently elected and to farewell those who had been given the old ‘Thank you very much—out the door’. And of course it was all paid for by the ratepayers, and what a marvellous thing that is! But I had to congratulate newly elected councillor Trevor Dance, who strongly objected to this absolute travesty of waste. He actually rang the council and said, ‘I don’t wish to go. I wish my allocation of money—
Dr Cumming: He brought his own lunch.
Mr FINN: Hello, cocky! He said, ‘I wish my allocation of money to go to those who are without, those who are suffering’. And I thought that was indeed a very fair enough sort of suggestion—a very, very good suggestion indeed. The council distributed it amongst other councillors so that that money did not go to where Cr Dance had asked. It went to that aforesaid booze-up, nosh-up, knees-up.
It was some absolute horror for me to find out that the reason that was given for this particular gathering was, ‘Well, we’ve always done this. This has been approved by council, and this is the way we do it.’ Well, my view is that that is not the way you do it. The fact of the matter is: could you imagine the outcry if we all got together here, invited our family and friends along and had an almighty great booze-up upstairs—perhaps in the Legislative Council committee room or room K or somewhere like that? It is the Federation Room now; that is right, isn’t it? Imagine the outcry.
Well, I think it is about time that we had an outcry for what is happening at the Hume council. I think for them to be spending the sort of money that they are spending on these sorts of gatherings is criminal waste and a gross insult to the hardworking people of the City of Hume, keeping in mind that the airport is in the City of Hume and there are a good many people in the aviation industry who do not have a job at the moment but I would assume are still expected to pay rates. So I am asking the minister to appoint a monitor to audit all of this sort of unnecessary spending that the Hume council commits itself to.
Brimbank infrastructure strategy
Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (22:43): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Suburban Development, and the action that I seek is for the minister to meet with Brimbank City Council to be briefed on their 2050 Leading with Vision draft strategy, a plan for Melbourne’s west to respond, recover and rebuild from the COVID-19 pandemic and address historical inadequacies and issues, especially relating to jobs creation and environmental issues.
Brimbank’s strategy is first and foremost inclusive. It is about providing a legacy for the people of the west. It seeks to complement and support the strengths and the opportunities with other councils and communities, including Wyndham, Melton, Moonee Valley, Maribyrnong and Hobsons Bay. Council’s vision advocates for an airport rail and super-hub and a design that maximises the economic investment and development potential for the broader Sunshine priority precinct, a driver and catalyst for value creation and jobs. These are possibly the most important infrastructure projects outside of the Melbourne CBD and possibly even in Australia for a local government area and regional and local communities.
By leveraging the existing investment and projects and commitments, this vision creates pathways of education, employment and other outcomes by including people of the west in building infrastructure and securing long-term jobs and industries—that is, people working where they live, not having to travel across the CBD. Additionally, it provides foundations for the state to address historical environmental inadequacies and issues, including at the former Sunshine landfill site. This could be transformed into an international-standard sport, entertainment, recreational, cultural and urban forest precinct.
This plan holds the potential to transform Brimbank and Melbourne’s west, but it all begins with the final design the state adopts around the new Sunshine transport super-hub. The state’s prebudget airport rail announcement emphasised the commitment to building a world-class station outside of Melbourne’s airport, and Brimbank’s vision outlines how the state can commit to the same at Sunshine. Understanding and engaging with this plan is critical for this state government, and I hope that they will engage with Brimbank City Council.
Builders licences
Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (22:46): I raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Planning, and it relates to registered domestic builder-managers. Registered domestic builder-manager was a class of licence that was foreshadowed back earlier this year to expire on 30 June 2022. I have been contacted by a constituent registered builder who holds one of these licences. He has been advised that that licence will now expire in the near future and not on 30 June 2022. He has provided me with a copy of a statement from the Masters Builders Association of Victoria which says:
Victorian Building Authority
has advised that as it stands, registered Domestic Builder Managers (DBMs) will need to transition to a new class of registration before they can be issued with building permits. The VBA intends to work with DBM registered practitioners on solutions …
It goes on to say:
If you have any open building permits or signed contracts, Master Builders recommends you seek legal advice.
This hasty, it would appear, and truncated process will mean these registered domestic building managers will be left without a licence in the near future without a clear pathway to a new licence that can enable works that are currently on foot to be concluded and the like. This is a very serious issue, particularly given the importance of these licences to the legal operation of the construction industry. The action I seek from the Minister for Planning is that he provide clarity about how this issue is going to be resolved.
Dame Phyllis Frost Centre
Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (22:48): The adjournment matter that I raise is to the Minister for Corrections, and the action I seek is for the minister to commit to extending the pilot program for the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre disability and complex needs team. An audit of Victoria’s prisons in 2011 found that 33 per cent—a third—of all females in those prisons had been diagnosed with an acquired brain injury. In October I raised this issue with the minister at the time about the need to have more support for people with acquired brain injuries in our prison system. Since then the government has announced a pilot program to support women with ABIs at Dame Phyllis Frost. This is a small but dedicated team of occupational therapists, disability support workers and national disability insurance scheme access staff. These people do a brilliant job, and they have worked with these women to get the most out of life. I mean, women with ABIs do not belong in prison, but if they are there, it is good that they have some support.
Unfortunately the funding for this program is only for one year. This program should not have to run the gauntlet for recurrent funding every 12 months. If we are going to put people in prison with acquired brain injuries, then we must support them to improve their lives. Not only should this program be extended, but if the need is there it should be extended to Tarrengower Prison in Bendigo so women there can get the support that they need. The action I seek is for the government to commit funding to this program for the next four years to ensure the staff and women involved with the program have some certainty.
Mont Albert and Surrey Hills train stations
Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (22:50): May I say what an extraordinary debate it has been tonight. I was fascinated to learn that not only of course are the Victorian people fundamentally racist but so are Victorian horses. Who knew? Even horses and other animals are not free from the clutches of identity politics here in Victoria, but I do think if I am rating the various different contributions from other members that Mr Finn’s nosh-up at Hume council takes the cake.
My matter is far more mundane, and it is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place. Last week people in Mont Albert and Surrey Hills were surprised—very surprised—to receive information from the government that a major decision had been made regarding their local train stations. The Surrey Hills station was opened in 1883, and Mont Albert station was opened in 1890. They are central to the village atmosphere of the inner eastern suburbs, and they have managed to maintain that atmosphere despite very significant population growth.
The advocacy of the Surrey Hills Progress Association from the very initial stages of this project made it clear to the government that protecting the amenity of the village and ensuring positive outcomes for local traders should be at the very centre of any proposed changes in the area. The government informed the community that they will be losing these two stations—they informed the community just on 2 December—and instead that one rebuilt station would be put in place. The suggested location sits adjacent to the Lorne Parade Reserve, and there are real and legitimate fears that the result of the changes will be a concrete jungle not dissimilar to that created by this Labor government’s botched Blackburn station project.
Now, the government hid its plans to remove an entire station from local residents in the electorate of Box Hill at the last election. What else is the government hiding? For example, what is the government’s plan for parking? At the moment it has articulated none. The action I seek is for the minister to commit to genuinely consulting with local residents, to ensuring that this project does not destroy the local amenity and the village feel of Mont Albert and Surrey Hills and also to protecting the pocket of green space near the proposed new station.
Qantas workforce
Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (22:53): My adjournment tonight is for the Minister for Industrial Relations. In the middle of a pandemic, when aviation is on its knees, Qantas is moving to outsource 2500 of its loyal, hardworking, highly trained workers. Over 500 Victorians are set to face Christmas with no hope of a bright 2021. These workers are the people who get you and your bags on and off the plane, get the linen and the food onto your flight, clean the cabins so it is safe and push your aircraft back to send you on your way.
Qantas admits these jobs must still be carried out; it just does not want its own workers to do it anymore. Instead it wants outside agencies which pay workers less to do it. These workers are not being made redundant; they are being replaced. To rub salt into their wounds, Qantas rejected an in-house bid by its workers for their own jobs despite that bid being cheaper than the average bid from outside agencies. One of these Qantas workers about to lose their job is my nephew, who has worked as a baggage handler in Cairns for the past 14 years. I know the dedication and pride Qantas workers bring to their jobs, and I know how devastating it is for them to be pushed out in this way.
Qantas has received substantial amounts of public support since the pandemic hit, grounding its aircraft. Reports to June show the airline received $800 million in JobKeeper payments for its workers and to keep the flying routes open. Now, despite our support for Qantas, it is letting down its workers when they need it most. This is not the spirit of Australia, and I condemn Qantas for these actions. The action I seek is for the Minister for Industrial Relations to call upon the airline to halt the outsourcing of Victorian workers that is creating an environment of insecure work.
Timber industry
Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (22:55): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Agriculture, and I see the minister is at the table this evening so it is very fortunate that she will be able to respond and make a commitment to me at the end of this adjournment. Now, the adjournment matter responds to a comment that she made in Parliament today at question time when she said, in relation to timber harvesters, that she regularly speaks with timber workers. The particular timber harvesters that I have been working with for a number of years, but specifically this year, are in the eastern part of Victoria in my electorate. There are a whole range of timber harvesters right across the Central Highlands in the north that also have these similar issues. The issues relate to the closure of the timber industry and what that will look like and the hugely negative and significant impact on their lives, their businesses and their towns.
The timber harvesters, specifically those in eastern Victoria, in Gippsland, were the people who, when the fire was coming down the Princes Highway in the middle of the night through Cann River, through to Mallacoota, around Timboon and up towards Omeo, put in containment lines under a huge threat to themselves, their own equipment and their staff. Highly trained as they are, they were protecting our environment, our people and our towns. These are the same people who are hugely concerned about this so-called transition program that the government has where you can take $25 000, give it to a consultant and the consultant will say, ‘There is no future for you in your town. You cannot transition to a plantation industry because there aren’t any in Orbost or the like’. These are the people who know and understand the environment in which they live and are passionate about the bush, so much so that one of them said to me, ‘If they’re going to shut me down, at least let me talk to the minister so I can explain how we can try and heal that landscape after it’s been burnt so devastatingly and so hot’.
My father used to say, ‘Where there’s a will there’s a way’, Minister, and these people are desperate to speak to you. They want to have their say, they deserve to have their say, so I am asking you on behalf of them to meet with them. I have given you their names and numbers. You have a spreadsheet with this on it. I have asked you this many a time in different sorts of frameworks. I am asking you to meet with these East Gippsland timber harvesters and the mill workers. You can meet them on Facebook, Zoom or the like. But I ask you to make that commitment here tonight to meet with them.
Victoria’s India strategy
Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (22:57): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Premier, and the action I seek is that the Victorian government reassess Victoria’s India strategy in the context of recent concerns about the Indian government’s treatment of farmers and religious minorities. In September 2020 Prime Minister Modi’s government passed three controversial agricultural bills despite opposition demands to send the bills to a parliamentary committee for further deliberation. These acts have been described as anti-farmer laws by farmer unions, while others say they would leave farmers at the mercy of corporates, which has led to an ongoing and notably the biggest protest movement in India’s history.
Soon after the acts were introduced unions started holding local protests, mostly in the states of Punjab and Haryana. After two months of protests farmers from the states of Punjab and Haryana started a movement called Delhi Chalo in which over a half a million farmers, over 500 farmer unions and 14 million truckers, bus drivers and taxidrivers marched towards the national capital. Police and law enforcement officers used water cannons and tear gas to prevent the farmers from entering Delhi. Several demonstrations and protests were also seen in Melbourne over the weekend. This has been another chapter in a deeply worrying trend emerging in India.
In December 2019 India enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, which discriminates on the grounds of religion in the provision of citizenship. The citizenship legislation is effectively being used to revoke the citizenship of religious minorities and will result in statelessness for many vulnerable and marginalised groups. A large number of people have been declared to be foreigners, detained and left at the risk of statelessness by these citizenship verification processes. There are serious questions about the legality of these actions, and worryingly protest and dissent have been met with an authoritarian response from the government and reports of civil liberties being dramatically infringed. Victoria is proudly home to Australia’s largest Indian population, which contributes significantly to the success of our state. We also have the largest number of university partnerships with India and welcome the largest number of Indian students of any Australian state.
I have been approached by many concerned people of Indian origin who are based in Victoria to speak up about this issue. We should all be very worried about what is happening in India right now under Prime Minister Modi. Victoria, through its trade relationship with India, must take into account India’s human rights records and any actions that its trading partner takes that could disenfranchise and discriminate against millions of people. To turn a blind eye for the sake of a dollar is an indictment of our state and effectively sanctions the actions of a foreign government. Victoria must demand more and advocate for an end to human rights violations with all its trading partners, including India, before continuing any future economic relationship.
Responses
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (23:00): Tonight there were 15 adjournment matters, 14 of which are for other ministers and will be passed on as appropriate.
In relation to Ms Bath’s adjournment matter this evening, there was a fair bit in it that I could take up, but I might just get to the crux of her issue. It was in relation to my interactions and meetings with people within the timber industry. I can confirm that I did have meetings on Friday with about eight harvesting groups in Corryong. Those groups came from all parts of Victoria to deal with the bushfire response and harvesting of burnt timber that would otherwise go to waste, and I would take the opportunity to thank all timber harvesters who responded to the fire. It is important work. Those are highly skilled duties that they perform, and on numerous occasions I have joined Ms Bath in thanking them for their efforts.
In relation to meeting with a particular cohort of timber workers in East Gippsland, I can confirm that the Committee for Gippsland has certainly asked to convene a meeting of interested parties. I responded to that correspondence recently and have committed to a meeting in the new year.
The PRESIDENT: Do you have any responses to adjournments?
Ms SYMES: I do; 46.
Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (23:02): President, regarding the standing orders and specifically in relation to the timeliness of responses to adjournment matters, I draw your attention to adjournment matter 752, asked on 4 August, which is now 126 days overdue. To be fair to the Government Whip, we have had a number of conversations about this. To be fair to the minister at the table, I have asked her twice about this.
Ms Symes: What is the question?
Mr ONDARCHIE: It was about the medically supervised injecting room, and it was asked on 4 August.
Ms Symes: What is the actual question?
Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, it is on the record, and I am not going to read it into Hansard again tonight, but it is—
Ms Symes: I might be able to dispatch it if you ask me.
Mr ONDARCHIE: No, you cannot dispatch it; it did not go to you. It went to a minister. But anyway, through the Chair, the standing orders give me a number of provisions and I have chosen not to exercise these in previous weeks, but can I indicate to the minister at the table as she looks to supply some reason why I still do not have this answer that Thursday night could be a very, very late night should I choose to use the standing orders.
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (23:03): I did invite Mr Ondarchie to perhaps give me an indication of the specific question in an attempt to dispatch it as the Leader of the Government, and I can only commit that that is a standing offer. But in the meantime I know that our hardworking Government Whip has sought to furnish that response, and we will have another crack for you, Mr Ondarchie.
The PRESIDENT: The house stands adjourned.
House adjourned 11.03 pm.
Written adjournment responses
Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.
Tuesday, 8 December 2020
Wallan train derailment
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (23 April 2020)
Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General):
On 20 February 2020 two people died in the Wallan train derailment. They were the train’s driver, John Kennedy, and the train’s pilot, Sam Meintanis. Their deaths are a tragedy for the Victorian community. I want to acknowledge the terrible loss of life and significant impact their deaths have had on their families, friends, colleagues, and communities.
As the courts operate independently of government however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on or intervene in an individual case. I have confirmed with the Coroners Court of Victoria that both deaths have been reported to State Coroner, Judge John Cain. While an interim report has been handed down, there is an ongoing Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation. I understand the State Coroner will wait until the ATSB investigation is completed to review that material. The results of the ATSB investigation are expected to be released by the end of the year. The State Coroner will then decide whether the matter should go to inquest.
Section 7 of the Coroners Act 2008 (the Act) requires the State Coroner to liaise with other investigative authorities to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiries or investigations and to expedite the investigation of deaths. Accordingly, it is appropriate to await the outcome of the ATSB investigation prior to the State Coroner considering the matter.
The definition of a ‘reportable death’ in Section 4 of the Act states the State Coroner must investigate a death that occurs in Victoria, where the body is in Victoria or where the cause of death occurred in Victoria. The Act does not limit this power by exempting any agencies, departments or entities at a State or Federal level. Section 7 of the Coroners Court Bench Book also reiterates the State Coroner’s power to investigate public transport, road, and marine deaths.
Strip shopping centres
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (16 June 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring our strip shopping centres that are home to many sole traders, micro-businesses and small and medium businesses are supported to help their members manage the economic impacts of restrictions and prepare for recovery and COVID Normal through access to cash grants, tax relief, skills program, mentoring and wellbeing assistance.
The $5 million Grants for Business Chambers and Trader Groups program will soon provide funding to Victorian business chambers and local trader groups for initiatives to support their members’ transition into recovery and COVID Normal. This grant is part of an additional $3 billion of support announced by the Premier on 13 September 2020.
A further $290 million announced on 14 September 2020 is support entertainment and hospitality businesses, including many located in strip shopping centres that contribute to their local trader groups. These business survival packages bring the total business support being provided by the Victorian Government to more than $7 billion.
Communities in metropolitan Melbourne will benefit from improved suburban activity centres and shopping strips through a new $6 million investment announced on 30 July 2020, to support local communities in Metropolitan Partnership regions. This support includes $3 million for the Neighbourhood Activity Centre Renewal Fund to provide grants of up to $100,000 to stimulate business activity, support local economies and improve public amenity and accessibility during the coronavirus pandemic. The fund will involve partnerships with Local Government, businesses and the community sector and is open to 31 councils in metropolitan Melbourne and Mitchell Shire.
Victoria’s Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme provides small businesses with strong backing to negotiate and reach agreement with their landlords. Commercial tenants that experience difficulties negotiating rent relief with their landlord can contact the Victorian Small Business Commission for support at enquiries@vsbc.vic.gov.au or 13 87 22.
More information on all the Victorian Government’s business support measures is at the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.
Mental health support
In reply to Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (1 September 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
Thank you for your adjournment debate matter regarding access to the Wellbeing and Mental Health Support program. The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on many small and medium businesses continues to be significant.
As you are aware, the Victorian Government has invested $26 million in the Wellbeing and Mental Health Support for Victorian Businesses program. Through the program, Victorians dealing with the challenges of running a small business can get wellbeing and mental health support to navigate through the impacts of coronavirus (COVID-19).
Sole traders and small business owners in the Eastern Metropolitan Region can access the following services:
• The Partners in Wellbeing hotline 1300 375 330 until 10pm each night, and over the weekend.
• Mental Health and Crisis Support training, available to a key member of each of Victoria’s local Business Associations, Chambers of Commerce or Business Networks. Registration is available at business.vic.gov.au/stjohntraining.
The Partners in Wellbeing hotline has been expanded to provide business owners under stress with free access to wellbeing and mental health advice. The accredited Mental Health and Crisis Support training provided through St John Ambulance Victoria will build mental health support capability within local business communities.
The Wellbeing and Mental Health Support for Victorian Businesses program is expected to run until 2022, with additional supports addressing the needs of businesses being introduced over the life of the program.
Businesses can visit business.vic.gov.au/wellbeingsupport to access the latest available wellbeing and mental health support. This information is also provided in languages other than English.
More information on all the Victorian Government business support measures is at the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.
COVID-19
In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (15 September 2020)
Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):
Thank you for you for the adjournment matter regarding Victorian businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
This has been a difficult time for all Victorians, and I would like to assure you that the Government is well aware of the plight of Victorian businesses. We committed to safely and cautiously re-opening the economy in line with the Roadmap to reopening for metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria.
The Victorian Government consulted with industry extensively in the lead up to the release of the Roadmap. We continued and will continue to work closely with industry as we work together to progress along the Roadmap to reopening.
The Victorian Government acknowledges that businesses are facing significant hardship and as such, in addition to previously announced support, on the 13 September 2020, the Premier announced a further $3 billion package to support businesses impacted by ongoing restrictions and help businesses prepare for a new COVID Normal future. A range of components to the Business Resilience Package have been set up to assist businesses, including the following:
• Business Support Fund 3 ($822 million)
• Licensed Venue Fund ($251 million)
• Sole Trader Support Fund ($100 million)
• Support for Alpine businesses ($4.3 million)
• Grants for Business Chambers and Trader Groups ($3 million)
The Victorian Government’s Business Adaptation package also provides funding, tools and resources to help Victorian businesses adapt and prepare for reopening under COVID Normal settings:
• Small Business Digital Adaptation Program ($20 million)
• Export Recovery Package ($15.7 million)
• Extended Click for Vic campaign ($8.5 million)
• Outdoor Eating and Entertainment Package ($87.5 million)
• Melbourne City Recovery Fund ($100 million)
In addition to direct business support, the Victorian Government has also provided $1.8 billion in tax and cashflow support including deferring of payroll tax for businesses with payrolls up to $10 million for the full 2020–21 financial year.
Shepparton bypass
In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (13 October 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
I thank the Member for Northern Victoria Region for her question.
The business case for the Bypassing Shepparton projects will be finalised for Government consideration by the end of 2020.
The Shepparton community bypassed the former Liberal Government after their failure to deliver any major projects for the region. We are working with local stakeholders through the Bypassing Shepparton Project Liaison Group on preliminary designs to make sure we get this complex planning job done right.
The Commonwealth commitment of $208 million is not enough to deliver this project.
The actual costs to construct the Bypassing Shepparton projects are being determined as part of the business case.
Marine vessel safety
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14 October 2020)
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):
Metropolitan Melbourne’s move to Step Two restrictions, effective from 11.59pm on 18 October 2020, allowed boating maintenance with marine and specialist mechanics. This included scheduled and logbook services and safety inspections.
This means all Victorians can take their boats and trailers to businesses that provide boating safety inspections, servicing and maintenance services. This ensures people can have their boating safety inspections completed ahead of the upcoming summer.
Regional cinemas
In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Victoria’s cinemas make an important contribution to our culture, economy and local communities.
From 11.59pm on 22 November 2020, indoor cinemas across the state can open with up to 150 people per space. All indoor cinemas in Victoria must have a COVIDSafe Plan and abide by the restrictions set out in the Industry Restart Guidelines for Indoor Entertainment Venues. These include complying with relevant density quotients, cleaning and records requirements.
To support Victorian businesses through restrictions, the Government has provided more than $6 billion to help businesses survive, retain their employees and prepare for COVID Normal operating conditions. The $3 billion Business Resilience Package announced in September includes over $1.1 billion to support small- and medium-sized businesses that are most affected by coronavirus restrictions.
For our state to recover, we need our businesses to recover. As we move towards COVID Normal, the Victorian Government will continue supporting businesses and communities to get back on their feet.
Motor vehicle registration fees
In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14 October 2020)
Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):
Premiums paid for by Victorian motorists, in the form of the Transport Accident Charge, provide vital funding for supports, services and compensation paid to Victorians injured as a result of a transport accident. Premiums also fund investments in life-saving road safety infrastructure, and engagement and education with the Victorian community on important road safety issues.
The system of personal injury insurance that we have in Victoria is the envy of the world, and is a system of insurance that ensures Victorians who have suffered from road trauma get the help they need to get their lives back on track following a transport accident.
The Victorian Government has a proud record of making the cost of registration and insurance affordable for all Victorians, introducing short-term registration from 1 January 2018 to allow for more flexible payment options, and not raising registration or the TAC charge above the consumer price index (CPI) since entering Government. This year, as part of supports implemented to help Victorians during the Coronavirus pandemic, the Victorian Government suppressed the TAC Charge for 2020–21, meaning it won’t rise in line with CPI this year.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
I recognise how challenging coronavirus restrictions have been for all Victorians. The decisions the Victorian Government has taken in response to the pandemic have been driven by the advice of our public health experts to slow the spread of coronavirus. Thanks to all Victorians who did the right thing, following the rules and getting tested, our strategy is working.
As a result of this collective effort, Victoria has completed the move to the Last Step of the government’s Roadmap to Reopening. Under the Last Step, there are no restrictions on the reasons to leave home and an easing of restrictions on numerous industries including hospitality. Under this step, Melbourne’s cafes, restaurants and pubs can reopen with 300 patrons outdoors and up to 150 indoors, within density limits. Venues smaller than 200sqm can open with 50 patrons, within density limits. These limits, along with record keeping and other COVIDSafe requirements, will support a safe and sustainable reopening of Victorian businesses.
The Government understands that for our state to recover, we need our businesses to recover. We have announced a wide range of measures to support businesses across Victoria that are impacted by coronavirus restrictions. Our $3 billion Business Resilience Package–which takes the Government’s total quantum of business support to over $6 billion–is delivering cash grants, tax relief and support to Victorian businesses to help them survive and retain their employees.
Earlier this year, the Government acted swiftly to implement commercial and residential tenancy relief schemes in accordance with principles agreed by National Cabinet. The commercial tenancy relief scheme provides practical relief and protections, including a moratorium on evictions for non-payment of rent, a freeze on rent increases, and a free mediation service by the Victorian Small Business Commissioner to support negotiations between tenants and landlords.
Given the economic impacts of the pandemic, the Victorian Government extended the commercial tenancy relief scheme from the end of September through to 31 December 2020. In addition to extending the scheme, the amending regulations included new measures requiring that rent relief must, at a minimum, be proportionate to the decline of a commercial tenant’s turnover. In Ms Wright’s case, I would encourage her to seek further advice from the Victorian Small Business Commission and to engage with her landlord on rent reduction under this scheme.
As we move towards a COVIDSafe Summer, the Victorian Government will continue supporting businesses and communities to get back on their feet.
Gambling harm
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):
While gaming is a legitimate recreational activity, the Victorian Government recognises the importance of measures to reduce gambling-related harm in communities across the State.
In the 2019–20 Budget, the government provided the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (the Foundation) with $153 million over the next four years. This represents the nation’s largest commitment to address problem gambling. The Foundation delivers communication and education strategies, commissions research, and works with Gambler’s Help agencies to deliver counselling and treatment services to people experiencing harm from gambling.
The Foundation funds and works closely with organisations across Victoria to provide free and confidential Gambler’s Help services to people experiencing harm from their own or someone else’s gambling. Services offered include telephone, face-to-face, online and financial counselling as well as advice and information.
The Foundation supports community-led initiatives that aim to decrease risk factors and strengthen protective factors related to gambling harm. The suite of initiatives aim to build local capacity, foster innovation, and grow the evidence base on preventing gambling harm. Funding is provided to local governments, and community-based, not-for-profit, and public health organisations including Gambler’s Help Services to deliver innovative placed-based projects in diverse communities across Victoria. These projects include raising awareness of the risks of gambling, providing alternative recreational activities, reducing the stigma of gambling harm and encouraging people experiencing gambling harm to seek support.
Among the current projects is Libraries After Dark, led by Moreland City Council and which offers a variety of after-hours activities at several local libraries across metropolitan and regional Victoria. A key focus of the program is to provide community members with social and recreational opportunities during the evening as an alternative to attending gambling venues. Other projects also focus on gambling harm prevention through opportunities to come together to play sport and other physical recreation, while engaging and educating participants in the effects of gambling harm.
Funded organisations include Reclink Australia and Whittlesea Community Connections.
Other government reforms to reduce gambling-related harm include:
• Introducing Australia’s first state-wide networked pre-commitment scheme, YourPlay, which allows Victorians to set limits on how much time and money they spend on gaming machines. Through this, players are assisted to identify and change problematic playing behaviours.
• Prohibiting ATMs in gaming venues and imposing $200 transaction and $500 daily EFTPOS withdrawal limits. Victoria is the only Australian mainland jurisdiction without ATMs in gaming venues. Further prohibitions apply on cash advanced from a credit account and on cashing cheques at gaming venues.
• Capping the total number of gaming machines in Victoria until 2042 and setting regional caps and municipal limits on gaming machine entitlements. The caps and limits help to ensure that Victoria remains the Australian jurisdiction with the lowest density of gaming machines, except for Western Australia (which does not permit gaming machines outside the casino).
• Requiring venue operators to have a Responsible Gambling Code of Conduct that demonstrates a commitment to foster responsible gambling in their venue. On 1 March 2020, venue operators were directed to include new content in their codes by the end of August. The changes will improve harm minimisation in gaming venues, including by recognising that a venue operator has a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent and minimise harm from the operation of gaming machines in the gaming venue.
Mental health services
In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15 October 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
Thank you for raising this matter.
Every suicide is devastating, and every suicide is one too many. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives to suicide.
The Andrews Labor Government takes this very seriously and has been closely monitoring and responding to the support needs of all Victorians, including children and adolescents, throughout the year.
To do this, the State Coroner is now releasing monthly updates on suicide deaths in Victoria, and as you point out, the most recent report showed 13 young males under 18 years died by suicide in the first nine months of 2020.
While one suicide is too many, it’s important to also acknowledge the Coroner’s statement that: This does not necessarily mean there is an increasing suicide trend among young males; suicide is very rare in this age group and random fluctuation is therefore expected. The deaths are currently under coronial investigation to identify any potential underlying issues.
There is no doubt that coronavirus is increasing feelings of stress, isolation and uncertainty in our community. Many people will be feeling anxious and worried for the health and safety of themselves and loved ones.
That’s why the Andrews Labor Government has announced more than $200 million in funding to help meet demand for mental health support during the coronavirus pandemic. This included:
• $28.7 million for more than 7,000 extra people to access earlier care and support through additional clinical mental health services in the community.
• $23.3 million for an additional 28 inpatient beds.
• $6.6 million to increase clinical support at three Prevention and Recovery Care (PARC) units to support Victorians in the early phases of recovery.
It provides vital surge capacity for hospital-based and community mental health services and to accelerate the delivery of the essential reforms recommended by the Royal Commission.
It includes an extension to online and telehealth counselling services like Lifeline and BeyondBlue, and it is helping community-based mental health services do what they do best.
It’s also bringing forward the expansion of the HOPE Program to 7 new sites:
• Box Hill
• Royal Melbourne Hospital
• Monash Clayton
• Heidelberg
• Broadmeadows
• Warrnambool
• Mildura
And it is increasing services in high-risk regional areas like Ballarat and Albury-Wodonga, as recommended by the interim report of the Royal Commission.
In a landmark investment, the Government has also fast-tracked the $51.2 million Mental Health Practitioners in Secondary Schools Program, to ensure that every government secondary school will have a mental health practitioner by end-2021. This is on top of the $28.5 million package to support students’ mental health and engagement during the coronavirus pandemic.
On top of that, the Victorian Government is also working closely with the Commonwealth Government on the 15 newly established HeadtoHelp mental health clinics designed to support Victorians during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Further, we have provided $19.5 million to extend the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System to 5 February 2021 and ensure that everyone who wants to contribute is able and to fast track the implementation of some recommendations including 135 acute beds.
I also note that the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System will make recommendations on the broader changes needed to transform the state’s mental health system and improve access for individuals, families and communities. The Royal Commission will provide its final report in February 2021.
All of these funding initiatives will assist those who need it most. I trust this information is of assistance.
Panton Hill Preschool
In reply to Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):
I am advised that:
At my instruction, the Department of Education and Training (the Department) has been working closely with the service provider for Panton Hill Preschool, TRY Australia Children’s Services (TRY) as well as with representatives from the Shire of Nillumbik to understand the short and long-term issues faced by the service.
I am pleased to advise the member that following these discussions, agreement has been reached with TRY to ensure that Panton Hill Preschool can deliver its kindergarten program to local children in 2021.
The Andrews Labor Government is committed to ensuring all families have access to local, high quality kindergarten services regardless of where they live. To help maintain this, the Government has allocated over $70 million across 2020 to support kindergarten providers in response to the impacts of COVID-19, and ensure most families using sessional kindergarten services have access to a free program.
The recent 2020–21 Victorian Budget provides $773.8 million to early childhood, including $302 million to continue the roll-out of three-year-old kinder, part of our $5 billion investment over the next decade to provide funded kinder for three-year-old’s across Victoria. This will be available to funded kindergarten services in the Shire of Nilumbik, including Panton Hill, from 2022.
$169.6 million Is also being provided to make kinder free for up to 100,000 Victorian families including families in Panton Hill—saving thousands of dollars in kinder fees for families each year.
We know it’s been a difficult year for many families, balancing learning and working from home—these significant investment will reduce the burden on parents and better support kids as they move into school.
I thank the member for raising this matter with me and for his ongoing advocacy for early childhood education in his community.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
I recognise how challenging the coronavirus restrictions have been for all Victorians. The decisions the Victorian Government has taken in response to the pandemic have been driven by the advice of our public health experts to slow the spread of coronavirus. The evidence shows that our strategy is working.
From 11:59pm, 22 November 2020, Victoria moved further along the roadmap to reopening to the Last Step. Under the Last Step, Victorians can leave the home for any reason and work is able to recommence onsite if it cannot be performed from home. This includes photography services that need to occur onsite. Professional photography, including school photos, is allowed across Victoria. School photographers can operate both indoors and outdoors.
As is required for all Victorian businesses, professional photographers must have a COVIDSafe Plan. As we move along our roadmap to reopening, we must continue to take safe, steady and sustainable steps to preserve the hard-won gains of our communities across the state. Restrictions are constantly being assessed to allow for further easing as soon as it is safe to do so.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (16 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing public health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
From 11:59pm, 22 November 2020, Victoria moved further along the roadmap to reopening to the Last Step. Restrictions allow increased indoor and outdoor seated capacity for hospitality venues and the reopening of movie theatres, galleries, museums and music halls, with limits. The border between Melbourne and regional Victoria has also reopened, providing additional trading opportunities for regional Victorian businesses.
This announcement builds on the further easing of restrictions under the Third Step for regional Victoria that came into effect on Tuesday 8 November 2020, that allowed a variety of industries to reopen with limits.
Businesses operating across Victoria can open with a COVIDSafe Plan to reduce the risk of coronavirus spreading within the workplace (unless they have no employees onsite). Business must also comply with relevant density quotients, cleaning, signage and records requirements. We are asking all businesses to support Victoria to stay safe and stay open by implementing COVIDSafe practices.
Recognising the impact on the economy of driving down coronavirus cases and moving to a COVIDSafe Summer, the Government is taking additional steps—through $3 billion in cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support—to assist Victorian businesses and help keep Victorians in jobs. This includes over $1.1 billion to support small and medium-sized businesses that are most impacted by coronavirus. Sole traders may also be supported through our $100 million Sole Trader Support Fund.
COVID-19
In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Victoria’s dance schools are an important part of our local communities and play a significant role in the health and wellbeing of many Victorians. Victoria’s roadmap to reopening is based on the advice of our public health experts and aims to ease restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.
From 11.59pm on 22 November 2020, Victoria progressed to the Last Step of the roadmap to reopening. Under the current restrictions indoor physical recreation, including dance classes, can occur with up to 150 patrons with a maximum group size of 20, subject to a density quotient.
The Victorian Government has provided more than $6 billion to help businesses survive, retain their employees and prepare for a COVIDSafe Summer. Our $3 billion Business Resilience Package announced in September includes over $1.1 billion to support small- and medium-sized businesses that are most impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. Sole traders may also be supported through our $100 million Sole Trader Support Fund.
Freight industry
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (27 October 2020)
Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):
At the Ports Roundtable held in January 2020, I announced that the Department of Transport will establish a new Voluntary Port Performance Model (VPPM) for the Port of Melbourne. The objective of the VPPM is to address industry concerns regarding increasing stevedore terminal charges through improved pricing transparency and a shared understanding of the current performance of the port supply chain. This approach was identified in the Deloitte Access Economics (Deloitte) Port Pricing and Access Review as an effective way to address industry concerns given that, at this stage, there is not a strong case for economic regulation of stevedores.
The first component of the VPPM is to establish a new protocol for how charges are changed and communicated to industry by the three Melbourne-based stevedore terminals. A final voluntary Protocol has been developed in consultation with stakeholders and is in effect as of 1 August 2020. The three stevedores have expressed their support and intention to align with the new Protocol for new charges and price adjustments.
The Protocol will ensure that pricing transparency in relation to terminal access charges is achieved by providing advance notice and a clear rationale for any amendment to a terminal’s existing charges or introduction of new charges. The Protocol requires the stevedores to provide the department and industry with justification and explanation of price changes within 60 days. A final notice is to be provided 30 days before the date of any change, including a statement of engagement summarising issues raised and the response of the terminal operator.
The next stage of the VPPM is underway and will involve working with the stevedores and industry to develop and agree a set of port performance indicators that are consistent, measurable and meaningful. A trial of performance monitoring is planned to commence in early 2021.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (27 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Restrictions for businesses, including playcentres, were further eased from 11:59 PM on 22 November. Playcentres are now open with a patron cap of 150, density quotient of 1 person per 4 square metres, and no group size limit.
I am acutely aware of the impact that coronavirus has had on businesses, which is why the Victorian Government has provided a range of supports to help businesses through this challenging period.
Since March, the Government has committed over $6 billion to support Victorian businesses to survive and adapt, including through initiatives such as the Business Support Fund that has so far provided over $2 billion in grants to small and medium sized businesses. We have also provided significant non-grant business supports such as the Commercial Tenancy Relief Scheme, waivers and deferrals on payroll tax, and a range of fees and levies.
Restrictions are constantly being assessed to allow for further reopening as soon as it is safe to do so. We will continue to take safe, steady and sustainable steps to preserve the hard-won gains of our communities across the state.
COVID-19
In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (27 October 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
As Minister for Education, my greatest responsibility is the wellbeing of students and school staff. That is why the Andrews Labor Government has always followed, and will continue to follow, the advice of the Victorian Chief Health Officer.
Staff and students will continue to be supported by a range of measures, including a COVIDSafe Plan for Schools, to help ensure a safe learning and working environment.
The Department of Education and Training (the Department) has sought further advice from the expert Public Health team within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regarding woodwind and brass instruments and singing.
I am advised that individual tuition (classes, lessons, practice) and small ensemble groups indoors can be conducted. I am advised that up to five people can now sing or use brass or wind instruments indoors. Where Individual tuition (classes, lessons, practice) and ensemble groups occur outdoors, there are no limits on the number of participants, across all schools in Victoria, with physical distancing and other hygiene measures where possible.
This is based on evidence regarding the potential spread of aerosols and droplets from the use of woodwind instruments, singing and voice projection. An exception applies for essential VCE assessments, for both metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria. Students preparing for essential assessments can practise outside and their examination performance will be indoors and in person.
I acknowledge that staff and students would like to see us return to the full range of music activities. I will continue to monitor the situation with my colleagues. I look forward to seeing school music programs return in full as soon as Victoria’s Chief Health advises that it is safe to do so.
Child protection
In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
I thank the member for her question.
Operation Molto is coordinated by the Australian Federal Police-led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation (ACCCE). Operation Molto has been supported by hundreds of police and specialist areas across Australia. In Victoria, the operation has resulted in 11 arrests, 105 charges and six children being removed from harm.
Victoria’s involvement in Operation Molto
Victoria Police’s Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team (JACET), Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Teams (SOCITs) and E-Crime Squad have been involved in Operation Molto.
JACET is a joint taskforce that was established in 2014. JACET is comprised of investigators from Victoria Police and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) who investigate the most abhorrent child abuse material being possessed, distributed or accessed. The primary purposes of the JACET is to:
• Identify and recover/rescue vulnerable children from further harm.
• Identify children in images and videos that depict child abuse (Victim Identification Team).
• Target recidivist offenders using the internet to procure or groom children for sexual purposes.
• Conduct proactive covert online engagement with offenders using the internet to procure or groom children (Proactive Online Engagement Team).
• Identify and monitor suspects using ‘peer to peer’ networks that share known child abuse material.
• Monitor and engage with offenders using gaming networks to procure or groom children (Gaming Crew).
• Liaise with international law enforcement agencies through the AFP.
• Manage interstate and international referrals.
To date, JACET has been involved in the investigation and coordination of six different operations initiated by the ACCCE being Operation P2P (2018), Operation Soutien (2019), Operation Walwa (2020), Operation Molto (2020), Operation Encompass (2020) and Operation Gargoyle (2020). JACET investigations are ongoing, however, the duration of Operation MoIto is guided by the ACCCE.
SOCITs are made up of specialist trained detectives who investigate complex crimes of sexual offences and child abuse. During Operation Molto, SOCITs from Shepparton, Westgate, Wodonga, Box Hill, Dandenong, Frankston and Benalla were involved.
Victoria Police’s E-Crime Squad assisted during Operation Molto by providing their specialist capability which involved the analysis of digital evidence and breaking through the encryption of electronic devices.
Victoria Police will continue to work with other state and federal law enforcement agencies, both in Australia and across the world, to ensure that Victoria is continuing to improve our response to this abhorrent crime.
Police conduct
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
Victoria Police is responsible for ensuring that the Chief Health Officer’s directions, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are complied with and in doing so play an essential role in reducing the impact and severity of COVID-19 on our community.
Victoria Police has engaged with the driver of the bus and its passengers on a number of occasions to ensure compliance with Chief Health Officer’s directions, the Road Safety Act 1986 and Road Safety Road Rules 2017. Victoria Police has and will continue to ensure the Chief Health Officer directions as relevant at any time are policed in order to keep our community safe. Anyone committing blatant, deliberate and obvious breaches will be fined and held to account.
Any suggestion by the member that Victoria Police is somehow politicising their response to COVID-19 is wrong and an insult to Victoria Police members who have put themselves in harm’s way to protect the community—efforts that the opposition has sought to undermine every day throughout this pandemic.
COVID-19
In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Masks have played an important part in reducing Victoria’s case numbers.
The current restrictions, including the current mask policy, are based on expert medical advice and have been introduced to reduce the number of coronavirus cases in Victoria. Decisions about current and future mask policy will continue to be based on expert health advice as Victoria moves towards a COVIDSafe Summer.
Walhalla Goldfields Railway
In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
The Victorian Government recognises the importance of tourism attractions in regional Victoria. Victoria’s roadmap to reopening is based on public health advice and informed by comprehensive modelling to protect the health and safety of all Victorians and ensure the economy is opened in a safe and sustainable way.
Under the Last Step of the roadmap which came into effect at 11.59pm on 22 November 2020 across Victoria, up to 20 people from any number of households are permitted per carriage, subject to density requirements. A COVIDSafe Plan and measures to ensure that customers are reasonably capable of maintaining a distance of 1.5 metres from each other should also be in place.
We have announced a wide range of measures to support businesses across Victoria impacted by coronavirus. Our $3 billion Business Resilience Package—which takes the Government’s total business support to over $6 billion—is delivering cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support to Victorian businesses to help them survive and retain their employees.
More than $100 million was allocated through the Experience Economy Survival Package to support organisations and jobs in Victoria’s sport, racing, tourism and creative sectors. Further to this, our $465 million Victorian Tourism Recovery Package will help the sector bounce back after a year of bushfires and necessary health restrictions to protect Victorians from coronavirus, including $28 million to support up to 120,000 vouchers to entice more people to visit and stay in regional Victoria.
Bushfire preparedness
In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):
Victoria is one of the most bushfire prone areas in the world. Reducing the vegetation around your home is one of the most important things you can do to keep your home safe in a bushfire. If you live in a bushfire prone area you may not need a planning permit to clear trees, branches and scrub from around your home.
Clause 52.12 Bushfire Protection Exemptions of Victorian planning schemes facilitates the clearing of vegetation around existing homes and along fence lines in specified circumstances to support the protection of human life and property from bushfire. It is known as the 10/30 and 10/50 rule. It contains specific exemptions from requiring a planning permit to manage and maintain vegetation to reduce bushfire risk. This provision was developed in response to recommendations of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. In addition to this exemption, Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) contains exemptions to allow property owners to undertake planned burns.
More information can be found on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) website via https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/bushfire/your-property/vegetation-removal-for-bushfire-protection.
No single strategy or action alone can manage bushfire risk. Fuel management is just one strategy for reducing bushfire risk. In 2015, the Inspector General of Emergency Management (IGEM) undertook a review of performance targets for fuel management and recommended a shift from a hectare based program to a risk-based program.
In response, the Victorian Government, released Safer Together—a new approach to reducing the risks of bushfire in Victoria. Safer Together combines stronger community partnerships with the latest science and technology to more effectively target our actions and included the transition to a risk-based performance measure for fuel management on public land.
This risk-based approach was recently endorsed through the independent reviews undertaken by the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (Reducing Bushfire Risk audit), the IGEM review of the 2019–20 bushfire season and the Royal Commission into National Disaster Response Arrangements.
The VAGO report has identified significant strengths in DELWP’s approach to the planning, monitoring and delivery of public land fuel management. The report explicitly acknowledges that DELWP’s risk-based approach is a significant improvement against the prior hectare-based target, which could be achieved by undertaking planned burning in areas where it did not contribute to actual risk reduction.
DELWP works closely with partner agencies to continuously adapt the approach to managing bushfire risk in response to a changing climate and reduce the risk of bushfire to our communities, the environment, critical infrastructure and local economies.
Firearms licensing
In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
Licence fees play an important role in making recreational activities such as hunting and fishing safe and sustainable by assisting with funding for industry regulation, investment and research activities. In determining licence fees, many factors are taken into consideration including the complexity of assessing an individual’s suitability for a licence, level of ongoing oversight required of licensees and demand for licences.
When setting licence fees in Regulations, such as in the Firearms Regulations 2018, the Government is required to prepare a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for public release which provides a detailed analysis of available fee options. Submissions received on the RIS must be taken into account when making the Regulations. In accordance with the Victorian Guide to Regulation (2016), the Victorian Government seeks to ensure that proposed regulations are well-targeted, effective and appropriate, and impose the lowest possible burden on Victorian businesses, individuals and the community.
The Government is committed to ensuring that licensing costs in Victoria are fair, balanced and, wherever possible, kept to a minimum. The recommendation made to align the licence fees has been noted and provided to the Licensing and Regulation Division (LRD) of Victoria Police for further consideration.
I am aware of the ongoing impact COVID-19 is having on licence holder s’ ability to participate in recreational shooting over the last 12 months and the ongoing financial pressures it is placing on licensees. That’s why Victoria Police has made important changes to support provisional handgun licence holders during 2020 including:
• all current 6-month provisional licences will be extended to 12 months at no cost to the holder; and
• all provisional handgun licence holders who have a provisional licence of 12 months that has or will expire while restrictions are in place can elect to apply for a general category handgun licence.
Applicants for a general category handgun licence will need to ensure that they meet the following requirements:
• a nominee for the club has endorsed the application; and
• they have held a membership to the approved club for at least 6 months prior to making the application.
Club officials may choose to waive the 5 shoot minimum requirement if they are satisfied that the member has previously demonstrated competence.
Furthermore, Victoria Police has made the decision to waive all handgun participation requirements for the 2020 calendar year effective immediately. This means that all shoots or matches required to be completed per number of classes of handgun possessed, will be exempt for the 2020 calendar year.
Additional support for firearms licensees during this difficult period will be considered and I would encourage you to monitor the LRD website www.police.vic.gov.au/firearms-industry-news for updates.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (29 October 2020)
Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):
Victorians have sacrificed a great deal during the coronavirus pandemic. The public health response was a necessary measure which kept Victorians safe, and suppressed the virus. The success of that strategy has meant Victoria is now on the Last Step of our Roadmap.
The Andrews Labor Government has worked closely with cinema operators to ensure that they can open up safely and this engagement has been welcomed by the sector.
On 8 November 2020, the Government announced a relaxation in restrictions for indoor seated entertainment venues that enabled cinemas to re-open with specifications about physical distancing and audience caps.
These safe and measured steps were followed on 23 November 2020 with a further relaxation of restrictions. At this point, cinemas of 600 or lower capacity are able to seat up to 150 people. Those of greater than 600 capacity could accommodate up to 25 per cent. A minimum density quotient of 1 person per four square metres applies.
Ultimately these are public health decisions made by the Chief Health Officer. Following the science gives us the best chance for a lasting return to business and to the creative and cultural experiences Victorians enjoy.
COVID-19
In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (29 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Our Government recognises how challenging coronavirus restrictions have been for all Victorians. Victoria’s roadmap for reopening is based on public health advice and comprehensive modelling and aims to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all Victorians.
From 11.59pm on 8 November 2020, restrictions for metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria aligned under the Third Step for reopening. Since this time, intrastate travel has been permitted for any reason, including between the Mornington and Bellarine Peninsulas. I commend Searoad Ferries for continuing their operations throughout the pandemic, abiding by the public health advice and operating with a COVIDSafe plan.
We have announced a wide range of measures to support businesses across Victoria impacted by coronavirus. Our $3 billion Business Resilience Package—which takes the Government’s total business support to over $6 billion—is delivering cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support to Victorian businesses to help them survive and retain their employees.
Dalton Road traffic management
In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (29 October 2020)
Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):
As part of Towards Zero 2016–2020 Victoria’s Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan, the Department of Transport (DoT) works with all its road safety partners to design and implement treatments that will help create a safer environment for everyone. In Victoria, 28 per cent of deaths and 41 per cent of serious injuries occur at intersections and the Towards Zero Action Plan seeks to invest in safety at the most dangerous locations across the Victorian road network.
The primary objective of raised intersection treatments is to encourage drivers to reduce their travel speeds, thereby reducing the severity of crashes (if they occur) for all road users. These treatments at these locations helps to create a safe environment for all road users.
Traffic light sequences are designed to balance competing needs, prioritising safety and the heaviest people movements. The designs also consider the broader network context so that the busiest journeys move the most efficiently.
Major Roads Projects Victoria will soon deliver the Epping Road and Child Roads Upgrade projects. These will further help improve travel times and safety on these key nearby roads.
The Department will continue to monitor the network and assess the need for changes to improve safety at these intersections.
Working for Victoria
In reply to Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):
I thank Ms Watt for her question.
The $500 million Working for Victoria initiative is helping people who have lost their jobs, including as a result of coronavirus (COVID-19), to find paid work that supports the Victorian community.
The Victorian Government is partnering with businesses, local governments, community service organisations and the public sector to identify employment opportunities that can be taken up by Victorians.
I am pleased to advise that Working for Victoria has funded more than 240 jobs in 30 Aboriginal organisations including Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, Traditional Owner Groups and creative arts organisations.
This includes the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, Aborigines Advancement League, Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Limited, Dardi Munwurro, Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Traditional Owners Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung Cultural Heritage Corporation and Blak Dot Gallery.
This will support Aboriginal jobseekers into a range of roles including community outreach, food preparation and distribution, delivery of online arts programs, land management, traineeships and crisis services for family violence.
Working for Victoria is delivering funding to 44 community sector organisations supporting more than 1,500 jobs. Workers are performing roles including employment support, counselling and youth services, community engagement, emergency and food relief, family support and support for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, including refugees and asylum seekers. This includes around 150 jobs in multicultural and multifaith organisations.
I would be very happy to provide you with a further briefing on Working for Victoria.
Barry Road intersections, Campbellfield
In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):
Melbourne’s northern outer suburbs are some of the fastest growing areas in Australia. This growth places pressure on the road network. Several road projects to reduce congestion and improve safety in the northern and north-western suburbs have been previously announced. The 2018–19 State Budget included upgrades to Craigieburn Road West, Childs Road, Epping Road, and Sunbury Road.
With respect to other roads in the north-west of Melbourne like Barry Road, the Department of Transport (DoT) will continue to work with planning authorities, councils and land developers to make changes that improve safety and relieve congestion across the network whenever possible.
Balancing the movement of all road users through the operation of traffic lights is challenging. DoT advises that the operation of traffic lights at all these locations is optimised to manage competing demands. Traffic light timings are arranged to prioritise the highest demands (for example, Hume Highway carries six times the volume of traffic carried by Barry Road). Also, traffic lights are linked to help people move as efficiently as possible, although along Barry Road this can be impacted by the activation of boom gates to stop traffic for passing trains near Upfield train station.
Library funding
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):
I thank the Member for her question and for her advocacy for the work of Public Libraries Victoria and the importance of public libraries to those living in the Western Metropolitan Region.
Public libraries are vibrant community hubs that provide all Victorians with universal access to information. They offer a safe space for social interaction, digital connection, lifelong learning and rich cultural experiences.
Over recent years, Victorian public libraries have significantly increased their online resources and programs making them important community hubs both physically and virtually. As you note, this has enabled public libraries, even when physically closed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, to provide these important services to the community across the Western Metropolitan Region and throughout Victoria.
As we progress towards COVID normal and public libraries reopen their doors, they will continue to support the community through the recovery process.
This financial year, the State Government will be providing a record level of funding to public libraries thanks to a funding boost in the 2020–21 State Budget.
$45.835 million will be provided through the Public Libraries Funding Program in 2020–21 to assist Victoria’s public libraries to buy more books and e-resources and deliver programs like story time and outreach services. This is a 2.5 per cent increase from 2019–20.
A record $10 million will be provided in 2020–21 through the Living Libraries Infrastructure Program to support councils to build, redevelop or refurbish libraries.
A further $1.1 million will be provided through the Premiers’ Reading Challenge Book Fund 2020–21 to enable public libraries to acquire resources to support participation in the annual Premiers’ Reading Challenge Book Fund.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):
Firstly, on behalf of all Victorians, please pass on our condolences to Caterina and her family at what must be an incredibly difficult time. Our thought and prayers are with her.
The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing public health advice to the Victorian Government to promote and protect the public health and wellbeing of Victorians under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Restrictions in place have been informed by expert public health advice to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and protect Victorians.
On 6 September 2020, the Victorian Government released the COVID-19 roadmap for reopening which details the safe steps Victoria will take to ease restrictions, including restrictions on weddings. As of 11:59pm on 22 November 2020, weddings can have up to 150 people, as well a celebrant and a photographer, or others working at the event. Weddings held in private residences can have up to 15 attendees. Subject to case numbers remaining low, Victoria is on track to keep moving towards a COVIDSafe Summer. This will mean further increases to attendee limits at weddings, which will be subject to public health advice.
I recognise that many sacrifices have been made to enable us to get to where we are today and again, I thank all Victorians for their contribution.
Djab Wurrung cultural heritage
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
The Victorian Government recognises the right of people to publicly convey their opinions lawfully, including at protests and street marches. The opportunity to protest is an integral part of our open and democratic way of life. In Victoria, people have the right to engage in peaceful protests and demonstrations provided that they do so lawfully and do not engage in illegal behaviours such as trespassing, obstructing roads and foot paths, endangering the safety of persons, causing injury to persons or damage to property, causing a breach of the peace or posing a risk to public safety.
It is Victoria Police’s role to ensure any protest activity is undertaken lawfully and without risk to either protestors or those working on site. Additionally, Victoria Police has the responsibility of enforcing the Chief Health Officer directions—whether that’s at a shopping centre, in a park or at a protest, and leaving metropolitan Melbourne to protest in regional Victoria was not a valid reason for travel. Despite restrictions easing, we are still living with COVID-19 and we need to be vigilant as a community. It is still important that we all play our role and continue to follow the Chief Health Officer directions.
I can advise that arrests were made under the Major Transport Facilitation Act 2009, where persons were in designated areas and refused to leave, Obstructing Police, Failing to Provide Names and Addresses and assault. While some persons arrested were charged with breaching Chief Health Officer directions, no emergency powers were exercised in making arrests.
COVID-19
In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (30 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
The Victorian Government recognises the right of people to publicly convey their opinions lawfully, including at protests and street marches. The opportunity to protest is an integral part of our open and democratic way of life. In Victoria, people have the right to engage in peaceful protests and demonstrations provided that they do so lawfully and do not engage in illegal behaviours such as trespassing, obstructing roads and footpaths, endangering the safety of persons, causing injury to persons or damage to property, causing a breach of the peace or posing a risk to public safety.
Community safety continues to be of paramount importance to Victoria Police. The role of police at community protests is to maintain public order, enforce the law and ensure safety of protestors and the broader community. Police will only intervene when there is a real risk to public order or community safety.
I can advise the member that Victoria Police has worked closely with the majority of protest organisers however some have refused to engage with police. This approach aligns with a modern ‘safety first’ police methodology and the desire to maintain a positive relationship with all groups in the community.
I support Victoria Police’s judgement when it comes to how best to use their powers and when they need to intervene. As the member knows, I do not have the power to direct police operations or arrests.
Additionally, Victoria Police has responsibility of enforcing the Chief Health Officer directions—whether that is at a shopping centre, in a park or at a protest. Despite restrictions easing, we are still living with COVID-19 and we need to be vigilant as a community. It is still important that we all play our role and continue to follow the Chief Health Officer directions.
Online offending
In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
Bullying of any kind, including online, has profound effects on the community and on individual victims. I can assure the member that it is taken seriously by the Victorian Government and Victoria Police.
Victoria Police continues to work with partner agencies, including the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), to investigate and improve the response and capability for instances of cybercrime, including online bullying.
As online offending often transcends state, federal and international jurisdictions, Victoria Police recognises the importance of working with the Victorian community to prevent cybercrime, including online bullying, by increasing awareness and educating the community on preventative measures.
Animal shelters
In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10 November 2020)
Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):
The 2020–21 Victorian Budget continues our Government’s record of investing in animal welfare initiatives. The Budget allocates funding of $19.1 million to improve the quality of animal welfare across Victoria and support the responsible care of pets. This will support improved domestic animal welfare outcomes across the state and continue to implement the Government’s Puppy Farms and Pet Shops reforms and the Animal Welfare Action Plan. It will also provide free or low-cost de-sexing of cats and dogs for vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians.
As part of this funding, $5.2 million will be provided in grants to support organisations undertaking pet homing activities, as well as to provide for a taskforce to consider opportunities to make the rehoming of pets safer in Victoria.
COVID-19
In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)
Ms HENNESSY (Altona—Attorney-General):
I thank the member for his question.
The COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk to the health and safety of Victorians. To slow the spread of COVID-19, all Victorians must comply with the directions made by the Chief Health Officer (CHO) under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (PHW Act).
Fines may be issued for non-compliance with the CHO’s directions, including for a failure to comply with directions in relation to private or public gatherings and for a person to refuse or fail to comply with an applicable direction given to the person, or a requirement made of the person, without reasonable excuse.
It is critical that Victorians comply with these requirements given the unprecedented risk posed by COVID-19 to the health and safety of all Victorians.
As the issuance of these fines for non-compliance with the public health directions is a matter for Victoria Police, these fines cannot be rescinded by the government. However, these fines may be reviewed in any of the ways available to review a fine.
Under the Infringements Act 2006 a fine recipient can request an internal review by the issuing enforcement agency. There are five grounds for internal review, including that there were exceptional circumstances, the fine recipient has special circumstances or there was a case of mistaken identity.
Alternatively, a person who receives an infringement notice, or who is unsuccessful on internal review, may elect to have the matter heard in court.
If a fine goes unpaid and is registered for enforcement with the Director, Fines Victoria, the person can also request an enforcement review by the Director, Fines Victoria under the Fines Reform Act 2014. The grounds for enforcement review are similar to those for internal review.
COVID-19
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)
Ms NEVILLE (Bellarine—Minister for Water, Minister for Police and Emergency Services):
The Victorian Government recognises the right of people to publicly convey their opinions lawfully, including at protests and street marches. The opportunity to protest is an integral part of our open and democratic way of life. In Victoria, people have the right to engage in peaceful protests and demonstrations provided that they do so lawfully and do not engage in illegal behaviours such as trespassing, obstructing roads and footpaths, endangering the safety of persons, causing injury to persons or damage to property, causing a breach of the peace or posing a risk to public safety.
It is the role of Victoria Police to ensure that the Chief Health Officer’s directions, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are complied with and in doing so play an essential role in reducing the impact and severity of COVID-19 on our community. At the time of the protest, Victoria was in the second step of restrictions and, per the Chief Health Officer’s directions, public gatherings could consist of no more than 10 individuals. This protest was in breach of those directions.
Please note that the police response to this gathering resulted in a large number of arrests. The processing of arrested persons took considerable time during which police moved many to the shaded sides of the road and assisted those with needs in the first instance.
Lastly, note that Victoria Police handed out cups of water to arrested persons, as previously provided bottled water was being thrown at police and others.
Transport infrastructure
In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11 November 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
I thank the Member for Southern Metropolitan Region for his question.
The Grattan Institute report referred to by the Member opposed major projects, including the North East Link and the Suburban Rail Loop. The report recommended that transport infrastructure projects over a billion dollars be avoided.
The Member has described the report as magnificent. This is consistent with the approach taken by the former Liberal Government who did not undertake any major transport projects. It is also consistent with the current Liberal Opposition who have been very clear that they do not support major projects including the Metro Tunnel, Level Crossing removals, the North East Link and the West Gate Tunnel.
The Victorian Government does not agree with the Member that projects over a billion dollars should be avoided. Fortunately, the Commonwealth Government has also ignored the pleas from the Victorian Liberals to oppose projects over a billion dollars, with their support of Melbourne Airport Rail, North East Link and Geelong Fast Rail.
The Victorian Government will continue to deliver on our election commitments.
Footscray RSL
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11 November 2020)
Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans):
I would like to thank Dr Cumming for providing information on the Footscray RSL Sub-Branch. I extend my congratulations to the Sub-Branch on its centenary anniversary. This is a remarkable achievement and I pass on my sincere thanks to the Sub-Branch President Viet Long Nguyen and the entire committee for the work they do to support veterans and their families.
The Veterans Capital Works Grant program was announced in the 2018–19 Victorian Budget and consisted of over $2.2 million over 2 years. It provided $1.47 million in grant funding over a two-year period to 45 ex-service organisations to improve their buildings and facilities. The grants supported ex-service organisations to improve their facilities so they could continue to deliver important services to veterans and their families.
Funded projects included solar projects, roof repairs, car park upgrades, kitchen, bathroom and hall upgrades and renovations of veterans’ accommodation. Of the 45 projects funded, 33 grants were provided to RSL Sub-Branches.
The remaining funds were used for key veteran programs including the Learning First-Hand program, the Public Sector Veteran Employment Strategy and program and grant delivery costs.
In April 2020 the Victorian Government announced a further $2.2 million to support ex-service organisations to ensure veterans receive vital support such as accommodation, food supplies and assistance with medical and utility bills. This included a $1.5 million top up of the ANZAC Appeal, and $650,000 to the Victorian Veterans Council to distribute through grant programs. As part of the Victorian Government’s $59.4 million commitment to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Coronavirus Response Package, $100,000 was provided to RSL Victoria to establish the Veteran Centre (VetCen) call centre to connect veterans with government services.
The Victorian Government is committed to providing support to ex-service organisations so they can continue to deliver important welfare services to veterans and their families.
Serendip Sanctuary
In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11 November 2020)
Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):
The Serendip Sanctuary forms part of the You Yangs Precinct master planning that is currently under development by Parks Victoria. The You Yangs Precinct Draft Master Plan identifies a number of initiatives which aim to enhance facilities and natural and cultural experiences across the precinct.
The draft master plan was developed following extensive consultation over the past year. This included structured engagement with community, partners and stakeholders, including the Wadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, Regional Development Victoria, Visit Victoria, Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine, and the City of Greater Geelong.
Parks Victoria recently completed an eight-week community consultation on the draft master plan, which included two online sessions, stakeholder meetings and roundtable discussions with Traditional Owners.
The role of captive animals at the site has featured in feedback from the community and will be a key issue considered when finalising the master plan.
Life skills education
In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11 November 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
The Victorian Curriculum F–10 incorporates the Australian Curriculum, which describes a learning entitlement for all young people, crucial for promoting equity and excellence in school education. The Victorian Curriculum F–10 articulates the breadth and depth of learning needed by all young Victorians so they can become successful, lifelong learners, confident individuals, and active and informed citizens, and hence meet the challenges and demands of the 21 Century with confidence. In particular, this includes the inclusion of life-skills such as financial literacy in the Economics and Business curriculum, communicating and interacting for health and well-being in the Health and Physical Education curriculum, through to students being taught the processes of creating designed solutions for personal, domestic and global settings in the Design and Technologies curriculum.
Additionally, Victorian schools enjoy the flexibility to design their own teaching programs, where, alongside covering the Victorian Curriculum F–10 schools can pursue extra-curricula life-skills programs that best meet the needs of particular student cohorts.
Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre
In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12 November 2020)
Ms SPENCE (Yuroke—Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Youth):
Providing high quality community sport and recreation infrastructure is a key aim of the Victorian Government and is integral to the health and well-being of all Victorians. Initiatives announced in the 2020–21 State Budget bring the Andrews Labor Government’s record investment in community sports infrastructure to more than $1.05 billion since 2014. More than $3.8 million of this investment has been directed to projects in the Rural City of Wangaratta.
This includes a $1.5 million investment from the Andrews Labor Government in the Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre through the Community Sports Infrastructure Fund, helping to secure Wangaratta’s aquatic needs for future generations. This investment supports the installation of a purpose-built hydrotherapy pool with an access-for-all ramp, lift and change facilities. Construction is well advanced, and the project is due for completion in very shortly.
The Victorian Government also supported the construction of a 50-metre outdoor pool, splash play area and toddler pool at the Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre by providing a $6 million loan through the Community Sports Infrastructure Loans Scheme (CSILS), enabling a significant increase in recreational and competitive aquatic activity.
The Government is proud to have partnered with local government to support the delivery of the Wangaratta Sports and Aquatic Centre redevelopment that will provide broad economic, social and health benefits for Wangaratta and surrounding communities.
The first round of the Victorian Government’s Community Sports Infrastructure Stimulus Program delivered $68 million in support of shovel-ready community sports infrastructure projects across the state, and the 2020–21 Budget included a further $110 million for a second round of the Program. I encourage the Rural City of Wangaratta to continue planning for projects that may be considered as part of the Victorian Government’s future grant programs.
Asylum seeker support
In reply to Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (12 November 2020)
Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):
I thank you for the question, and your commitment to a more inclusive TAFE system.
The Asylum Seeker Vocational Education and Training (ASVET) program has provided a pathway to economic and social participation for over 6000 asylum seekers and refugees granted temporary residence living in Victoria since its inception as a limited pilot in 2010. The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) has provided a centralised ‘help desk’ service for advice and assistance with referrals to Government-subsidised training for the cohort since this initial pilot, along with capacity-building events and resources for the sector to streamline enrolment processes and ensure consistent, culturally sensitive supports for participants across the state.
Since 1 January 2017, the ASVET program has allowed asylum seekers on Bridging Visa Es (BVEs), Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs) and Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) to enrol in accredited, Government-subsidised training at TAFEs and Learn Local Registered Training Organisations without referral from the ASRC; leading to six times the average annual enrolments for the first year, and more than doubling previous average annual participation rates since this time.
Recent focus of ASVET’s funded support services have included webinars and resources to support training providers and participants throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and a partnership with the Victorian Trades Hall Council to promote a funded program for pre-apprenticeship and traineeships open to those seeking asylum. The ASRC has reported that over 1000 ASVET advisory appointments occurred across 2020, with a large spike in referrals to security, health services and community services courses throughout the COVID-19 pandemic; as people saw them as increasing their prospects of quickly gaining employment.
The program has also helped to support participants on SHEVs to fulfil the pathway requirements to of their visas through study and work in designated regional areas. For example, Mina Abdolmaleki, a SHEV holder, is now on track to apply for permanent residency after successfully completing a Certificate IV in Community Services through the program and securing ongoing work for a large community services organisation assisting other asylum seekers in accessing training-to-employment pathways in the Northern Metropolitan Region.
There have been more than 1,600 enrolments in the Northern Metropolitan Region over the past 4 years. As such, the Northern Metropolitan Region has seen the highest engagement with the ASVET program across the entire state.
Grampians rock climbing
In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12 November 2020)
Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):
The Andrews Labor Government is committed to ongoing engagement with all park users, including rock climbers, and working in partnership with Traditional Owners in managing the Gariwerd landscape.
Rock climbing in the Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park is a valued recreational and sporting pursuit for many people and provides physical, social and economic benefits for local communities. The government is also committed to protecting and managing the park in partnership with Traditional Owners, other land managers and the broader community. Parks Victoria, as land manager of the park has specific legal responsibilities to protect the park’s environmental and cultural values.
On 11 November 2020, the Greater Gariwerd Landscape Draft Management Plan was released for public comment. Consultation is open until 24 January 2021 and further information can be found here—https://engage.vic.gov.au/gariwerd- management-plan.
Parks Victoria has engaged with the rock climbing community during the development of the draft management plan, including as recently as 11 November 2020, where key climbing-related elements of the plan were discussed.
The landmark Grampians Peaks Trail project commenced in 2014 and has been subject to cultural heritage, environmental and planning approvals to ensure that during project implementation, all impacts to park values were mitigated and complied with regulatory requirements.
Footscray Primary School
In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)
Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):
The Andrews Labor Government proudly celebrates the contribution of our State’s many diverse communities. We want to build on this in our commitment to creating Victoria as the Education State.
We know from research that learning another language is associated with long-term academic achievement, strengthening children’s memory, creative thinking and problem-solving skills, and enhancing their ability to concentrate and build connections.
I know how important the Footscray Primary School Vietnamese bilingual program is to the Vietnamese community, which is why in 2016 I asked the school to review its decision to cease offering a bilingual program.
Since that time, with support from the Department of Education and Training’s Languages Unit and the South Western Victoria Region office, the Vietnamese bilingual program has been allocated significant time, resourcing and additional funding to provide the greatest opportunity for program success.
Footscray Primary School has made considerable effort over the past several years to maintain a Vietnamese bilingual program and recruit suitably qualified bilingual teachers, including contacting universities to seek out newly qualified graduate teachers and employing Vietnamese-speaking teachers through both advertising and word of mouth.
Despite this effort, the Vietnamese bilingual program was not able to be delivered in a way that provided the students at Footscray Primary School with a quality learning program, nor satisfied the Department’s Designated Bilingual Program operating and funding model.
The school, under new leadership in 2020, is fully committed to providing an innovative comprehensive dual languages program with the re-establishment of a new bilingual program which will run in parallel with a Vietnamese languages program. Following a school community consultation process, Italian has been selected as the new bilingual language to be phased in from 2021.
Current students at Footscray Primary School will continue to be provided with the opportunity to learn about the history, culture and language of the Vietnamese people through a comprehensive, rich and high-quality language education program, which will be specifically co-designed with staff and community input.
The school will also continue to support the Vietnamese community language program that is delivered at the school on Saturday mornings.
Bell train station car park
In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)
Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):
I thank the Member for Northern Metropolitan Region for her question in relation to the Andrews Labor Government’s Bell to Preston level crossing removal project.
The Government has been delighted with the overwhelming response to the removal of these level crossings and the designs of the new stations. The Member for Northcote, Ms Kat Theophanous MP has been engaging very closely with her community, representing their views and has successfully advocated for hundreds of millions of dollars in extra funding to expand the project from one level crossing removal to four.
In contrast to the Member’s claim, detailed traffic modelling provided to the Bell Residents Group outlines that as a result of this project, there will be less traffic on the local streets to the east of Bell Station. The member also fails to mention that the Government is removing the current metro depot on the eastern side of the railway corridor, which will not only help create new open space but will lead to reduced traffic on local streets. The Government rejects the Greens Political Party’s support for more cars on local roads
In addition, the Bell Residents Group is represented on the project’s Preston Open Space Advisory Panel, made up of community members helping to shape Preston’s newest open spaces that can be used by everyone.
Both Bell Station and Preston Station will be rebuilt with designs recently released. The project will also include new open space along the length of the project corridor. Further details are available at www.levelcrossings.vic.gov.au.