Wednesday, 9 December 2020

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

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

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

Petitions

Following petition presented to house:

School chaplains

Legislative Council Electronic Petition

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the discrimination occurring in the Victorian public school system in relation to the hiring of school chaplains where appointments have been made based on a person’s religious belief or activity.

School chaplains in Victorian public schools work as part of the school’s wellbeing team. They contribute to student engagement and connectedness and help provide a safe and supportive environment.

The position of chaplain is not a religious one. Chaplains must not take advantage of their position to proselytise, evangelise or advocate for a particular religious view or belief. They cannot deliver religious instruction and may be of any faith or of no faith according to department guidelines.

Despite this, almost all chaplaincy job advertisements for Victorian public schools require that the applicant is of Christian faith and provides a reference from a Christian Minister, Priest or Pastor.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to stop advertisements for public school chaplaincy roles from excluding non-Christian applicants and require School Chaplaincy Providers to select school chaplains on merit, irrespective of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

By Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (370 signatures).

Laid on table.

Ms PATTEN: I move:

That the petition be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

Auditor-General’s Reports on—

Sexual Harassment in Local Government, December 2020 (Ordered to be published).

Systems and Support for Principal Performance, December 2020 (Ordered to be published).

Commission for Children and Young People—Keep caring: Systemic inquiry into services for young people transitioning from out-of-home care (Ordered to be published).

Community Visitors—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Fisheries Act 1995—Report on the disbursement of Recreational Fishing Licence Revenue from the Recreational Fishing Licence Trust Account, 2019–20.

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—Report to Parliament on the Extension of the Declaration of a State of Emergency, under section 198(8A) of the Act.

Victorian Fisheries Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Ports Corporation (Melbourne)—Report, 2019–20.

Business of the house

Notices of intention to make statements

Notices given.

Standing and sessional orders

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:39): I move, by leave:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the time for the consideration of general business today to be extended by up to 20 minutes and require the Chair to interrupt business no later than 5.35 pm for statements on reports, papers and petitions.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

COVID-19

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (09:39): Victoria has had a shocker of a year—from the devastation of the bushfires in the north and east of the state in January to the COVID-19 pandemic that has caused so much sadness and created so much stress and uncertainty. Now the real impacts on our economy are starting to be realised, with Victoria losing its AAA credit rating. This is the reality and a warning of what is going to be a very hard rebuild after what has occurred in Victoria.

The record borrowings of the Andrews government with no plan to pay back debt should be a concern for every single Victorian. It is a debt that will be carried by generations, with the government not identifying any areas for paying back this enormous bill, except to tax further and increase the tax burden of Victorians. In fact Victoria is the highest taxed state in Australia—just one of the many failures that Daniel Andrews will be remembered by. Under his leadership there have been 30 new or increased taxes. This is despite the assurance he gave to Victorians in 2014 with his false promise of no new taxes. With another two years to go before the next election, who knows what new taxes will be imposed on Victorians, who will be affected and when they will come into being.

Daniel Andrews will also be remembered for being responsible for the worst policy decisions of any government in the state’s history—a damning legacy that has sadly seen over 800 Victorians lose their lives due to COVID as a result of the second wave, which could have been avoided if the systems and processes were in place. Instead what Victorians have seen is arrogance, dismissal of concerns and cover-ups as to what went on and how. The immediate impact of those decisions were, as I said, devastating, but it is the ongoing social health, mental health and economic impacts that will be long lasting after the virus has gone.

As 2020 draws to a close I wish all members in this place, the parliamentary staff and indeed all Victorians a happy and safe Christmas, and let us hope that with the first vaccine being administered in the UK overnight, 2021 will bring new hope.

Victorian Parliamentarians for STEM

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:41): Over the past few months I have had the pleasure of partaking in the Victorian Parliamentarians for STEM webinar series. The initiative brings renowned industrial professionals from all over the world to discuss issues at the forefront of the world’s most pressing issues. In September I had the privilege of speaking to Professor Trent Munro, program director of the vaccine rapid response pipeline at the University of Queensland. He has been part of the UQ team developing a vaccine for COVID-19, with some very promising trial results. Later in the month we heard from Dr Toby Ord, a senior research fellow in philosophy at Oxford University. We discussed humanity’s vulnerability in existential crises such as global pandemics. He gave us a valuable insight into how this pandemic could inform our responses to future crises.

Just last week we had the final webinar for the year, with Dr Inbar Levy, a senior lecturer from the University of Melbourne. She provided us with insight on the potential of algorithms and machine learning to improve decision-making in the courtrooms. This will no doubt contribute to further discussion about the future of artificial intelligence in the Australian legal system. I want to extend my appreciation to the Victorian parliamentary library for hosting and facilitating the Parliamentarians for STEM webinar series. We look forward to more in the year ahead.

Duck hunting

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:43): It is the final sitting week before the Andrews government will make a decision on a 2021 duck-shooting season, despite a year like no other when many people in Victoria have been tireless in their efforts to end duck shooting once and for all. This government has done many progressive things, including for animals, yet they refuse to ban a cruel and outdated activity that Labor governments in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland banned decades ago.

Perhaps a decision to ban duck shooting is more important than ever before. The government has had an enormous focus on holidaying in regional Victoria as part of our economic recovery from coronavirus, but research has shown time and time again that Victorians will avoid regional towns during a duck-shooting season. Not only do they not want to see our native animals blasted from the sky, but duck shooting prevents everyday Victorians from utilising our iconic wetlands for passive activities like kayaking, picnicking and hiking. If Daniel Andrews will not make this decision because of the cruelty, then perhaps he will do so for the economy, because tourism and duck shooting simply do not mix.

Mark my words: if this government is so senseless and out of touch to call a season for 2021, we will be back on the wetlands and in this place stronger than ever before, ready to defend our native waterbirds, who deserve so much better than being gunned down for a thrill kill.

Creative industries sector

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (09:44): It has been a fantastic couple of weeks for the arts in the Northern Metropolitan Region. Two weeks ago I was delighted to join the Minister for Creative Industries at the Boîte’s online festival of multicultural music. This event showcased exceptional artists from diverse cultural communities. The measures to control the spread of coronavirus have had a significant impact on the creative industries as well as the workers who keep them rolling. The Boîte’s Adapt, Not Cancel campaign exemplifies the shift that many creative organisations have had to make to keep artists, workers and audiences safe by moving live events online.

The Boîte is one of many organisations that have benefited from the multicultural festivals and events program, which provided grants of up to $50 000 to assist multicultural and multifaith organisations to hold their community festivals and events online. This Labor government knows that creative workers are essential to the intellectual and emotional health of our society. They tell our stories, embody our struggles, reflect our triumphs and above all they make us laugh and cry. We know that they will be vital to our recovery, which is why the Labor government has committed a massive $220 million for creative spaces, organisations and workers. This will help to rebuild, recover and cement Victoria as the nation’s cultural capital—a state where we showcase who we are, our multiculturalism, diversity and resilience through the arts.

Reason Party

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (09:46): Last week I joined the member for Mildura, Ali Cupper, in her electorate to announce a new way of doing politics in Victoria. As is well understood, this house makes decisions that affect all Victorians, and I think we can all agree that it is good to have friends. Under our new coalition agreement, Ali will be the deputy leader of Reason and will mould our new Reason for the Regions policy platform. She will now represent the evidence-based facts-first policy approach of the Reason Party in the Legislative Assembly and in turn her voice, still vehemently independent for the people of Mildura, will now be heard in this place through me on all regional policy and other matters facing her electorate. It is not a hard partnership to understand, and we would welcome other like-minded Independent MPs and MPs from parties both large and small to discuss making alliances with us that can benefit the communities we represent. After all, isn’t that what we were all elected to do?

Felicitations

Ms PATTEN: I would also like to take this moment to thank everyone in the Council for what has been an incredibly difficult year. I hope that you all have some really good downtime over Christmas, over the holidays. Your communities will all be hoping to do the same. I hope that my community in the Northern Metropolitan gets a good break because, jeez, 2020 has been tough, and I look forward to 2021.

Country Fire Authority Leitchville station

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (09:48): The weather was wild in Leitchville last week, but that did not dampen the spirits during a visit to the local CFA crew to share the good news with Captain Darren Jenkins and Second Lieutenant Jim Parsons that Leitchville CFA will be getting a new station. And at the very time that I was making this announcement, today’s Deputy Leader of the Opposition was holding his own press conference. He was pouring scorn on the government for not funding a new CFA station in Leitchville, so there you go. The locals drew a bit of mirth and merriment from that little slip from today’s Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But of course that reform was made possible through the government’s fire services reforms, and the new building will accommodate their new tanker and will include a meeting room, kitchen, office, accessible amenities and changing areas for both women and men.

Echuca Cancer and Wellness Centre

Mr GEPP: On another matter, I was delighted to join with Echuca Regional Health to officially and virtually launch the Echuca Cancer and Wellness Centre project to the community. Expected to be completed in 2022, the centre is significant for residents and families living in the Echuca-Moama region. There will be 10 treatment chairs along with flexible spaces, including wellness and consulting rooms. It means patients and their families will have access to medical oncologists, nephrologists and radiation oncologists along with other support workers all under one roof. I look forward to visiting in person and celebrating the opening of what is going to be a life-changing facility for so many.

Felicitations

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:49): Today I would like to express my gratitude to the wonderful members that helped get the Transport Matters Party re-registered only last week. It is only with your support that I can stand here today fighting on your behalf. I also want to thank the taxi and hire car industry, who have worked throughout this pandemic to deliver an essential service. Without their dedication and commitment to their work, we know that many in the community—those with wheelchair needs—would have been disadvantaged. Others will not say this, but I am proud of you.

However, I cannot do this alone. I need to have a strong team, which includes Emma, Linda, Georgia and Kaya, and of course we have Norm. We all have a handbrake. This team has worked tirelessly this year, sometimes seven days a week, so that I can stand here representing my constituents and work with the Parliament to endeavour to create policy outcomes which will benefit Eastern Metropolitan Region and my wider support base.

I also would like to thank each one of my colleagues in this chamber, who have treated me respectfully even though I can be annoying at times. I also would like to thank Andrew and the team, Greg and his team and all the other parliamentary staff who make this place run like clockwork.

Felicitations

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (09:51): This is the final parliamentary sitting week for 2020, and the holiday season will be upon us soon. I would like to wish everyone in this place, in my electorate and across Victoria a very merry Christmas, happy Hanukkah and a happy new year. However you will be celebrating, I hope you have a safe and enjoyable holiday season.

I would like to commend the great work Victorians have done to get us to the point where we can now enjoy a COVID-safe summer. I would like to particularly thank the frontline medical and emergency workers who have done so much throughout this year and will continue to do so much during the holiday season.

Of course I would like to acknowledge those Victorians who will be working through the holidays, allowing the rest of us to enjoy a well-deserved break. With COVID restrictions having significantly eased, combined with the busy holiday season at this time of year, the pressure on retail and fast-food workers will be increased. More than ever I encourage everyone to be mindful of the pressure that these workers will be under and remind everyone to treat these hardworking people with the respect, decency and courtesy they deserve.

Finally, I would like to thank my office staff, the Parliament House staff and my colleagues for their hard work this year under challenging circumstances. It has been an honour to represent the Southern Metropolitan electorate again this year, and I look forward to hitting the ground running in 2021.

Skills First Reconnect

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (09:52): On Monday I visited three excellent education and training providers that have joined the government’s Reconnect program for 2021: the Youth Junction, the Westgate Community Initiatives Group and the Wingate Avenue Community Centre. The Reconnect program provides support to learners experiencing barriers to engaging in education, training and employment. The program provides wraparound support for disengaged and vulnerable learners to break down barriers, create pathways to further study and employment, and end the cycle of disadvantage. Since 2016 Reconnect has empowered 7425 participants to overcome barriers to education and training and consequently change their lives.

The summer bushfires and COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted vulnerable cohorts in our community, meaning disadvantage has only increased. We must provide the support needed for everyone to successfully obtain a skill and gain meaningful employment. That is why in October the Andrews Labor government announced a $47 million expansion of the Reconnect program.

The providers I visited are an exceptional example of the power of education, providing opportunities to people with a disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and young people involved in the justice system. Their participation in the Reconnect program in 2021 will ensure they have more support to provide the tailored one-on-one support needed to break down barriers to education and training, re-engage people in learning and help them turn their lives around. Congratulations to these centres and all those taking part in Reconnect in 2021.

Schools funding

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:54): I rise to make a members statement in regard to the announcements in this year’s budget for school funding in my region. I am pleased to report to the chamber that prior to this budget announcement Croydon Community School received funding of $18.12 million for a rebuild. Ruskin Park Primary School received $9.5 million to accommodate additional growth, and Templestowe Heights Primary School received $11.72 million to accommodate growth in enrolments. I am also very pleased to report that Heatherwood School received $10 million to fund the next stage of their master plan. These are schools that are in the Assembly electorates of Bulleen, Croydon and Warrandyte.

I am also pleased to report that Ainslie Parklands Primary School received $251 165 for a playground upgrade; Wonga Park received $41 000 for a playground upgrade; Donburn Primary School, $155 000; and Milgate Primary School, almost $58 000, again all in the state seat of Warrandyte. Ainslie Parklands is in the state seat of Croydon. Kilsyth Primary School received almost $98 000, and I am really pleased to report to the chamber that Croydon Special Development School will receive $500 000 to also support the upgrade of relocatables. This is on top of the maintenance blitz funding received by many schools in my region in December 2019, so you can see that the Andrews Labor government invests strongly in public education in those seats of Croydon, Warrandyte and Bulleen.

Veterans benefits

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:56): I received a briefing last week concerning veterans and the services provided to them. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that members of the defence force that have not served overseas as well as reservists may be eligible for a veterans white card. You could be eligible for a card if you have an existing Department of Veterans’ Affairs card as a veteran; are a current or former member of the Australian Defence Force, including a reservist with at least one day of continuous full-time service; are a reservist who can access free mental health care; or are a reservist with an accepted service-related injury or condition. The card is a treatment card that can provide you with medical treatment for accepted service-related injuries or conditions and all mental health conditions.

If you are eligible, the card can also provide you with medical treatment for cancer, subject to eligibility, as well as a range of services and support. You may be eligible for a white card to cover treatment for any mental health condition if you have at least one day of continuous service. The card covers you for clinically required medical treatment in Australia. It is an acceptance of your service and the injuries and conditions that you have. I encourage all members of the defence force and reservists to look at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs website to see their eligibility for benefits and to access the many benefits that they can receive.

Motions

Commercial passenger vehicle industry

Debate resumed on motion of Mr BARTON:

That this house:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) in 1998, the High Court of Australia determined that a taxi licence was a valuable item of property;

(b) since the commencement of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the revocation of perpetual Victorian taxi and hire car licences amounted to a compulsory government asset acquisition;

(c) the revocation of perpetual Victorian taxi and hire car licences for a fraction of their worth constitutes a breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006;

(d) arbitrary transition assistance payments in lieu of some, but not all, perpetual Victorian taxi and hire car licences was grossly inadequate and unfair;

(e) the deregulation of the industry in 2017 has:

(i) created a glut of commercial passenger vehicles on our roads;

(ii) reduced driver income to well below minimum wage;

(iii) threatened the economic viability of the industry;

(iv) caused worsening traffic congestion;

(2) calls on the Andrews government to:

(a) accept a financial proposal to properly compensate the industry for the compulsory asset acquisition of all perpetual Victorian taxi and hire car licences;

(b) make adjustments to the commercial passenger vehicle industry structure to better balance market components and end driver exploitation; and

(c) support a recovery plan to build back and move the commercial passenger vehicle industry forward through COVID-19.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (09:58): I will pick up where I was so rudely interrupted.

The PRESIDENT: Just before you start, Mr Quilty, I would just like to remind members that this continues from last week and we only have 9 minutes on the clock.

Mr QUILTY: The motion references a High Court case. However, this High Court decision actually found the opposite of what Mr Barton claims it did. It found that goodwill attached to the business and not to the licence. Dissenting opinions notwithstanding, the case in question effectively states that governments do not need to provide compensation when government decisions destroy the value of licences; taxpayers have already paid enough.

But let me get to the worst part of this motion. Mr Barton wants the government to re-regulate the commercial passenger vehicle market, limit the supply of rides and push back up the prices. No. We now have something approximating a free market—not free, but certainly freer than it was. The customers receive the benefits. They will never accept going back to the bad old past. If drivers do not think the returns are high enough, they will leave the industry. Without inflated investments in licences there is nothing to hold them there. A market rate is set, and customers and the economy benefit.

I will say again: I sympathise with people who lost their investments. It is hard not to want to do more for them, even for a cold-hearted economic rationalist such as me. But I believe the taxpayers have already done too much to compensate the industry. We cannot go back to the bad old days. The industry does not need more government regulation, it needs less.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:00): I will not respond to Mr Quilty. He is technically wrong. However, two weeks ago I introduced a motion in this house to address the dire consequences of the commercial passenger vehicle (CPV) reforms of 2017 and to seek to repair the past and create a pathway to move forward. I shared with you my own personal story and called on you all to acknowledge the economic devastation that was caused when the taxi and hire car licences were revoked for a fraction of their worth for some, and nothing for others, and to recognise that deregulation has caused a glut of commercial passenger vehicles on our roads, threatening the viability of the industry and pushing driver exploitation to new heights. Thank you to those who have contributed to the discussion, many of you in support of the argument I put forward.

Today, however, I wish to concentrate on the thoughts of the Andrews government, represented by Mr Melhem’s contribution only a fortnight ago. Rather than acknowledge the pain and financial devastation that stakeholders of the commercial passenger vehicle industry have endured as a consequence of these reforms, Mr Melhem instead chose to question whether taxi and hire car licences even constitute property and whether the revocation warrants any compensation. Mr Melhem deferred to an ongoing legal case—in fact there are three legal cases in the Victorian Supreme Court, and that should be a red flag for the government—which is seeking to address the issue, and suggested the matter is best avoided entirely until then lest Parliament interfere with the legal process. Disappointingly, the argument I was making has been missed by my friend and colleague. At no time when we recently debated the revocation of fishing licences in the Gippsland Lakes was there a debate whether the licences were property. Fishing licensees were properly compensated because their licences were fundamentally treated like property and relied on like property in the hands of the bearer, so they were fairly considered as such.

Recently I obtained further legal advice from a QC and a barrister to postulate this very idea of property, and I quote from them:

Often, the lay person (and even the lawyer) falls into the trap of supposing the term ‘property’ to connote the thing which is the object of ‘ownership’; but property is not a thing but, rather, a relationship which one has with a thing.

I will attempt to translate that into Rodspeak. Essentially what this means for taxi and hire car licences is: if it looks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it is property. Taxi and hire car licences were treated and relied upon financially by those who held them precisely like property. Federal and state government departments and financial institutions also consider them as income-bearing assets—property. Obtaining current legal recognition of whether it is or is not property has no bearing on the moral argument that we have before us, and that is that the removal from an individual of an income-bearing item of monetary value without proper compensation is ethically bankrupt. To hide behind a determination being sought by the courts does nothing for the people most affected, who continue to suffer financially and emotionally as a consequence of the decision of this government. It is simply unreasonable, unfair and unjust. The hardworking people of this industry deserve better. We must make this wrong a right.

Mr Melhem, I know in my heart of hearts that you understand this, and I appeal to you to put the political spin to one side and sympathise with the more-often-than-not migrant working people of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. Mr Melhem, we shall reminisce about what you had to say in this place on 22 June 2016, when this very chamber debated the introduction of the Ridesharing Bill 2016. Maybe my words do not carry any weight. Maybe I am too easy to ignore. But Mr Melhem, let us use your words, taken from Hansard on that day in 2016, before the CPV reforms were announced. I quote Mr Melhem:

In order to address this issue we cannot simply with the stroke of a pen put in quick legislation and say we will now legalise ridesharing and that is the end of the matter. Unfortunately it is not as easy as that. This is a multibillion-dollar industry, and some estimates by the Victorian Taxi Association show that, for example, the value of current taxi licences in Victoria far exceeds $1 billion. So there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I could not agree more with Mr Melhem. His assessment of the value of the privately held taxi and hire car licences which have been revoked as part of the reforms is accurate—over $1 billion wiped clean. Mr Melhem went on to say:

It is very important to look at opening up the industry for competition—I think it is a great thing—but it is also important that while doing that we do not send current operators to the wall. As I said, the Victorian Taxi Association has valued the current licences in Victoria, and these are not figures that have been plucked out of thin air. As a result of regulation over the years—however many decades—state governments have required these operators to pay a certain amount for licences and to meet certain regulations et cetera, and over time people have put in a lot of investment, rightly or wrongly, in the industry based on the rules at the time.

Now we are changing the rules, and that will have an impact on these people. I do not think it is fair. We need to address that.

Yes, Mr Melhem, we do need to address that. You suggested at the time, and I quote again:

There could be some sort of levy for a fund to be put in place to compensate these people, because for many of these people that is their pension—that is their retirement nest egg—and we definitely do not want to see them going to the wall.

Well, Mr Melhem, we can tell you many of us have gone to the wall. The very outcome you wished to avoid came true in this living nightmare for thousands of taxi and hire car families: some have lost their homes, others are paying for loans for assets they no longer own, others have been left without their superannuation and are now reliant on government benefits. I know what trade unions think about stripping people of their superannuation unfairly for the sake of government reforms. We must do better. It is possible to address this. We have a plan, and it is time to do it now.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Moorabool planning scheme

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:14): I am both pleased and not pleased. I wish I did not have to move this motion, but it is a very important motion. I move:

That this house, pursuant to section 38(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, revokes amendment C95 to the Moorabool planning scheme.

To make it clear to people what we are doing with this motion, this relates directly to the Maddingley Brown Coal site in Bacchus Marsh. It is a planning permit to allow the dumping of toxic spoil from the West Gate Tunnel. The government has in a parallel process provided environmental approvals—until yesterday, that is—to potentially three sites, two in the western suburbs and one in Bacchus Marsh. The overall environmental approvals were done by regulation on 30 June and individual works permits need to be applied to each of the sites that the government intends to dump its toxic spoil at.

Now, I make the point that this is the West Gate Tunnel. The government was advised when the environment effects process was happening that there was likely to be toxic soil come out of that tunnel. The government made no formal or proper arrangement for that toxic spoil and should have done so at the time. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that soil out of the old industrial inner west of Melbourne could well have issues, and the government ought to have dealt with that at the time. They did not, and now there is a huge problem that is entirely of their own creation.

But the problem has got worse in recent days. The government, on one hand, has provided environmental cover by suppressing the objectives of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and then providing a works permit in the case of Maddingley, but they have also now provided the planning permit, and this relates to the planning permit and seeks under section 38 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to revoke the permit that has been given. I should state that Mr Wynne, the Minister for Planning, has provided that planning cover. He has done that through section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act, tearing away planning approval power from the Shire of Moorabool, which is the local municipality that would normally have had responsibility for these approvals. He did so in a way that did not allow the community full input and did not allow the community to make the points that it wanted to make at a formal panel or some other process. He just proceeded with his section 20(4) decision.

In fact it is worse than that. Some time early last year—I think February was the date—Minister Jacinta Allan visited the Shire of Moorabool. Moorabool, at that meeting and subsequently in writing, requested a series of important documents to assist them and the community in responding to the government’s proposal to dump toxic spoil at Maddingley next to Bacchus Marsh. That material has fundamentally not been provided, so the government has starved the community and starved its guardians in the sense that the Shire of Moorabool should have been the responsible authority but certainly are a body that has an advocacy role even under the current arrangements with section 20(4). But without proper information the city is not in a position to make the decisions that are required and to make the full advocacy that is required. This is again an arrogant government—a government that is prepared to tear away people’s rights, tear away people’s democratic involvement in these steps and actually put the community at risk.

Now, I want to say something very directly about the merits of the proposal. There are process issues—bad process from the start on the West Gate Tunnel, and the chamber is familiar with some of that process. But the environmental approvals were bad process; the works approval—bad process, and I will come back and say more about that in a moment; and the planning approvals—bad process. But separate from the process issues is the issue of merits, and on the merits of placing toxic waste in the Maddingley Brown Coal site right near the town of Bacchus Marsh, it is a very poor decision by the government. This decision will expose the community to risk. It will expose the local school, Bacchus Marsh Grammar, to risk. It will put the environment at risk. There is a creek that is intricately connected with this particular site, and there is also prime agricultural and horticultural land that is involved in and close to this site.

So this is a really dumb idea. We need to find a safe containment facility, a secure containment facility, for this waste. The government ought to have done that several years ago. It did not, and now it is in a panic on this. But it is not a solution to dump this waste in a terrible site near a school, near the town, near the agricultural land, putting at risk the watertable and the creek.

This is a really, really dumb idea on every count. Process, merits—on both counts it is a dumb idea and ought to be rejected. The Shire of Moorabool is implacably opposed to this. Bacchus Marsh Grammar is implacably opposed to it. So many community people have contacted my office, and Mrs McArthur in particular has been very active with the community, actually putting a very strong face to some of that campaign and providing support to community people where no government member is prepared to do so.

Disgracefully, the two local lower house members, Michaela Settle and Steve McGhie, have been entirely absent from this process. They have not been prepared to stand up for their community and they have not been prepared to fight for their community, and I would go so far as to say that their behaviour is traitorous. That is the only word I can think of. They have sold their community out in the most disgraceful way. I think a number of ministers in this chamber also ought to have been involved in listening to their community and engaging and seeing the site and understanding what is actually being proposed, but they have not done that. I say that that is wrong and the community will judge them very harshly in the long term because of that.

This community is a growing community. It is a very significant community. There is a significant new housing development nearby, and there is significant future for the town given its proximity to Melbourne and the need to have close to Melbourne housing opportunities. This is another reason why I would say the idea of putting a toxic waste dump at Maddingley in Bacchus Marsh is a seriously dumb idea.

Some say that we dare not interrupt the process with the tunnel, we must clear the decks and do whatever Transurban wants, whatever the government wants to secure and push forward the West Gate Tunnel Project. I say there are other balancing factors. The risk to local farmland and the jobs in agricultural and horticultural industry there is a risk in itself. The risk to the school is a serious risk that should be balanced against on the other hand the claimed risk to the West Gate Tunnel Project. But the government does not seem to acknowledge that there is a genuine risk to the agricultural land and that the school is at risk and that the town is at risk. They seem not to balance the jobs involved in those industries.

I want to say something also about the decision yesterday of the government to roll, effectively, in front of a legal case by Bacchus Marsh Grammar—Bacchus Marsh Grammar and the Environment Protection Authority Victoria. The letter that comes from Christine Giles, principal solicitor at the EPA, makes it clear, and I think it is important to put some of this on the record quickly so that the chamber understands what has happened:

The Authority has carefully considered each of the grounds advanced by the plaintiffs in their respective originating motions. Although the Authority is not persuaded that most of the grounds have any merit, it has now formed the view that it is not open to it to be satisfied that the submitted by Maddingley Brown Coal Pty Ltd included all the matters specified in regulation 6(2)(s) of the Environment Protection (Management of Tunnel Boring Machine Spoil) Regulations 2020. Accordingly, the Authority has formed the view that the decision, on 1 September 2020, to approve the environment management plan submitted by MBC was made ultra vires.

Let us be clear the EPA is a toothless pussycat. It is a body that is directed and controlled by government. There was a meeting—and I can say this from an FOI that I fought bitterly to get—between key government ministers Jacinta Allan and the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and people from the Treasurer’s office, a big powwow that actually sought to find a solution here and roll forward, crunching the EPA, crunching other authorities, and there are very sharp letters directing the EPA on what to do and how to go about it.

This is meant to be an independent body. Well, I say it is nothing of the sort. I say it is a patsy for the government, and I say that this decision shows very clearly that they have made decisions which are bad in process and bad in actual content too. The letter says:

Consequently, the Authority writes to inform your client that it will consent to the first order sought …

by the plaintiff. It continues:

That is, the Authority will consent to an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the Decision (the Proposed Order).

They are going back to basics with this order, and my informal legal advice is that there are actually problems still with those regulations. The regulations themselves under which these works orders were made are problematic in and of themselves. They are very unorthodox. They quash the objectives of the act under which they are made, which seems to me to be a very unfortunate approach if the aim is environmental protection, and I think it is likely to run into legal issues if the Supreme Court ever gets to look at it.

But having said all that, this motion today is a motion on the planning approvals, and Bacchus Marsh Grammar has also written to the planning minister—dated yesterday, Tuesday—to say:

This is a follow up to our email … of 26 November …

Yesterday, the Victorian Environment Protection Authority wrote to the School acknowledging they acted beyond their power in granting the Environment Management Plan (EMP) under the Environment Protection (Management of Tunnel Boring Machine Spoil) Regulations 2020.

Your approval—

they are saying to Planning Minister Wynne—

of the planning scheme amendment relied heavily on the EPA’s approval of the EMP. According to the ‘Explanatory Report’ to amendment C95 … both stages 1 and 2 of the amendment are required to be undertaken in line with the approved EMP … Notably, after listing the issues raised by the Bacchus Marsh community and environmental groups in the ‘Reasons for Decision to Exercise Power of Intervention’ document …

This is: ‘I am the planning minister. I am going to use the powers in 20, part 4, to reach down and override the local community, strip power from the Shire of Moorabool to crunch them, and I am going to make this approval happen whether you like it or not. Suck it up, local community’. That is what Richard Wynne is saying in effect. They continue:

… you state:

20. The Incorporated Document and Environmental Management Plan approved under the Environment Protection (Management of Tunnel Boring Machine Spoil) Regulations 2020 will adequately address those concerns, and will enable the proposed use and development to proceed in a way that is acceptable, and with the various effects able to be managed in an acceptable way.

Bacchus Marsh Grammar goes on:

However, the EPA now advises it will seek orders to quash its decision approving the EMP. Therefore, we believe that your decision to approve MBC’s application for a planning scheme amendment is now in doubt.

And I think that is right, and revoking that planning scheme amendment today would be a very sensible step. It may be that legal steps are also pursued if the government is proposing to remake these planning scheme rules. They continue:

We have briefed our legal team to pursue all options given this admission by the EPA that their permit was granted in error. We now also request an urgent meeting with you this week in person or by phone, to discuss the implications of the EPA’s admission.

Well, this has been a very distant planning minister. He is very hard to get to on these matters. He is known to be slow and ponderous, but he makes decisions behind closed doors without the proper input, without the community input, that is required. He has made the decisions without the full input of community institutions like the grammar school, like the council and other key institutions in the town, and he has not provided to those institutions the information that would enable them to advocate fully on behalf of their community. As I say, this is a travesty, the whole thing from process—bad process on planning, bad process on environment protection—to bad content and bad merit to the decision as well. Whatever you think of the process—and that has been a travesty—the merit of the decision is also bad. I say the local community deserves a fair arrangement. I say the local community deserves to have an arrangement in place where it is properly consulted. There is no reason the Shire of Moorabool could not have been the planning authority on this matter. There is no reason to strip them of that involvement. They are a thoughtful, balanced, sensible council.

I have been out to meet them and talk about this matter. I have talked to their people on the phone a number of times to discuss their views and what is important to their community. I have spoken to councillors, as Mrs McArthur and others have. The good sense and balanced approach of the council I think should not be underestimated and should not be overridden. I think the use of section 20(4) here was wrong, and I think that is a reason to revoke it in and of itself. But I think in this case it is also such a travesty of a decision—a decision that will put the environmental health of the farmlands there under risk, put the school at risk—and why? Why? Because the government has not done the work to find a secure and proper containment facility that would safely and securely contain this material long term.

Maddingley, as I understand, will press forward. They also have a bad environmental record in their behaviour with other issues. I think that is beyond the need for today, but I would not call them model citizens in terms of their behaviour in terms of environmental activities with their waste site as it is, let alone the management of PFAS-contaminated toxic waste.

There are issues with the roads as well, and access, and the community has legitimately put those issues squarely on the table. They have not been resolved satisfactorily—some have, I should say, but not all of those issues—and I think that the community is legitimately questioning how that will impact on local roads and local traffic movements. But I think in essence, to conclude, what I am asking the house today is: see through what has gone on here. This is a revocation of a planning scheme approval that has been given. The process by which this approval has been given is poor. The process by which the environmental approvals were given was also poor—and has since fallen in a heap legally. At the same time we know that there is a risk to the community, to the school, to the town and to the agricultural and horticultural land around it, and to the waterways. Any one of those reasons in itself is sufficient to revoke this planning approval.

I think this is a case where the Parliament as a reserve, as a backup, as a check under the Planning and Environment Act to stop arrogant overreach by ministers and governments is important. For that reason and for the sake of the local community, I ask for support.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:33): I think this is the fifth time we have talked about the West Gate Tunnel Project and revocation motions moved by Mr Davis. So it is not the first time this issue has been brought to this house. Since that project was announced a while back, we have had revocation motion after revocation motion after revocation motion to basically shut this project down. I give Mr Davis credit for his persistence, but basically he has kept trying to do just that.

I agree with some of the comments Mr Davis made in relation to—there are things we agree on—community safety, making sure the environment is not damaged as a result, groundwater, farming communities, roads, access and all the stuff he has talked about in relation to genuine community safety and making sure there is full compliance with that; I am in agreement with him 110 per cent. But that is not the real reason. The real agenda of the Liberal Party has been widely criticised by industry and the community. In 2018 they used Parliament to try to revoke the planning permission for this project. That is when the first revocation motion was moved, back in 2018, because they did not like the project. If we are going to keep doing this every time the opposition do not like a particular project, how are we going to encourage investment in Victoria and how are we going to deal with major projects?

You have got the West Gate Tunnel Project. You have got the Metro Tunnel. You have got the North East Link Project. There is going to be a lot of dirt pulled up on that project, because there will be a lot of tunnelling. Every time: ‘Because politically we don’t like a particular project, we’re going to make the government look bad, and we’re going to move a revocation motion’.

Let us talk about why in the first place. I have been vocal in relation to some of the planning issues and environmental things and landfills. Everybody knows my view on this. One of the other landfills which is subject to similar regulation I live next door to, and I have been busy talking to ministers and various authorities to make sure whatever we put in place is actually done properly so we are not putting the community at risk and we are not compromising safety, whether it is roads or whether it is groundwater. We need to make sure we get it right, so I think we are in agreement on that.

The government could have done nothing, because the three proposed sites are already licensed to receive the material, which is classed as class C. They can actually receive the material, whether it is the Maddingley Brown Coal site, whether it is the Ravenhall site or whether it is the Sunbury site, which Mr Finn has been talking about for a long time. They are classed to receive that material already. The government’s reasoning—and we can talk about the EPA things; I will come back to that in a minute—for actually passing on regulation is to make sure there are further rigorous guidelines put in place and enforcement should these sites be chosen, because let us understand this: no decision has been made, to my understanding, as to where the soil is going. It could go to Maddingley, it could go to Ravenhall, it could go to Sunbury. It is a matter for the construction consortium—CPB Contractors and John Holland—and Transurban to work out a commercial arrangement to basically—

Mr Davis: So it is not going to Maddingley. Is that what you are saying?

Mr MELHEM: No, I am saying it could go—

Mr Davis: It could go there.

Mr MELHEM: It could go there, it could go to Ravenhall, it could go to Sunbury. They are the three sites, it is my understanding, that have been designated with the additional regulations and enforcements and planning put in place to make sure there are stringent rules put in place so they can actually deliver and do that job safely. As I said, they can do that under their existing licence; they can do it now. Some of them have received product already, whether it is from the Metro Tunnel or various other projects.

But the government wanted to go one step further, because we have got a boring machine that is going to dig a lot of soil from the West Gate Tunnel. It is going to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Stuff is going to come out non-stop along a long conveyor belt. I have been to the site a few times. It goes into a big warehouse, it is processed there and then it will be trucked to whatever site it is going to go to. Mr Davis and I agree that it is going to go somewhere; we understand that.

I do sympathise with the people of Bacchus Marsh. Obviously no-one wants to have hundreds of trucks going in next door to their neighbourhood; I get that. But what I do not get is the scaremongering, driving fear into the community and basically saying that it is toxic soil. Listen to the scientists; that is what I do. I listen to the scientists, and the advice of the scientists going back is that with any major project like this you do soil sampling before you actually put the contract out, the tender out, for construction companies to bid on. Hundreds and hundreds of holes had been dug before the tender was put out. That is when what we call an environment effects statement was put together, and that is when we discovered some PFAS. Now, people are trying to compare that PFAS to Fiskville and various other things. On the advice and the evidence I have seen it is actually very low risk—very, very low risk. Now, Mr Davis, I actually believe the scientists. I believe these people, the independent scientists who actually made the analysis. That is what the science tells us now.

Minister Wynne’s, Minister D’Ambrosio’s and Minister Allan’s instructions to the various authorities were: ‘We want you to plan for the worst-case scenario. Don’t plan for a lower risk; plan it for high risk. We know it’s not going to be high risk. We know it’s not even going to be medium risk. We know it’s low risk, but plan for the worst-case scenario because we need to make sure these stringent rules are in place’. And that is exactly what happened.

The Bacchus Marsh community and Bacchus Marsh Grammar have challenged that. It is their right to do so, and I respect that right. In my understanding of the EPA decision and the legal things, there have been some technical changes with the paperwork and a permit was issued conditional on a few things happening. The legal advice—and that is when lawyers get involved in these things; that is the process, and we should respect that—that was decided on was: ‘You don’t want to be knocked off on a technicality. Go and do your paperwork and redo it’. I think it is a bit disappointing that people did not do their paperwork. But from my advice on the technical aspect, on the scientific aspect—on the stuff that really matters—there is no question about what the EPA has relied on, and none of that needs to be reworked. It is all basically in check. It is just a matter of making sure of a new permit, which in my understanding is subject to the site resubmitting. Look, Maddingley might decide not to resubmit, and I think that would probably solve the problems for the people of Bacchus Marsh. It would be an issue then for Ravenhall and Sunbury. But should they resubmit, which in my understanding they will, then a permit will be issued on an unconditional basis in my understanding. I think it is important that we let that take its course, respecting the people of Bacchus Marsh to challenge the system.

Now, on the consultation process, there has been a fair bit of consultation with Moorabool council and the community. Mrs McArthur is laughing, but I believe there has been a lot of consultation to work through that process. I could go through that for the next 20 minutes I have, but I am conscious of the fact there are other members who would like to speak on that issue, so I will not go through that in great detail.

I just want to mention that local members for the area Michaela Settle and Stephen McGhie have been heavily involved in discussions with the community, the council and the various ministers and departments to make sure these issues have been addressed. On some of the areas where they are now making sure some of the concerns have been addressed, they have made it clear, and I am going to quote from a public position they put out—and in fact I had a brief discussion with them about it yesterday—that:

To that end, if the proposal is to go ahead, we have asked the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and the Minister for Environment to implement the following:

• EPA … must mandate regular publication of the testing results of any tunnel boring machine soil that is going into MBC.

• EPA … must have a permanent presence either on site at MBC or within the Moorabool Shire—in addition to the independent auditor that is already required as part of the Environmental Management Plan.

• EPA Victoria must release both the unredacted Environment Management Plan and the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment—in addition to the reports and documents that have already been released once the tender process has concluded.

I think there has been some debate on some of the documents where some things were taken out as commercial in confidence because of the bidding process between the various sites who were looking to get their tender agreed to.

So basically I join my fellow MPs, Ms Settle and Mr McGhie, and their pursuit on this issue, and my understanding is that these issues will be dealt with. Let us focus on one thing: I think we all agree on community safety and groundwater and making sure there is no compromise there and on including a traffic management plan. My understanding is it is all there, and I can go through it in detail but there is no time to do that. Regarding dust, for example, I think there is a part in the plan to make sure that that is being addressed, because you do not want trucks flying around and dust going everywhere.

Mrs McArthur: You should see the dust now, Cesar.

Mr MELHEM: Well, thank you, Mrs McArthur—exactly right. What are you doing about it right now? That is what I am saying. It is part of the new regulation to make sure that issue has been addressed. Thank you for reminding me of this, because it is a problem that does exist right now. The government can do nothing and basically they can sign a contract with CPB and John Holland and accept the material without the further regulation. The further regulation addresses these problems. It is saying, ‘You want to win a contract? You’ve got to do X, Y, Z’. That is why the EPA is rewriting the thing, because they are the conditions on which the terms have been issued. You have got to fix the roads, you have got to fix the dust and you have got to build a purpose-built plant to actually treat the soil, take the water out, clean it up and clean the water to a standard before you put it back. You have to make sure of the cell that the soil is going to go in, which is about 30 centimetres thick. There is various other stuff put in place to make sure that it does not leak into the groundwater system, even though it is going to be cleaned up. There are going to be wall barriers of 3 to 5 metres.

They are additional things. That is why the regulations have been put in place—to actually put these additional safety things in place to make sure we protect the community, we protect the food bowl, we protect everyone. Those are the reasons for it. Because we have got problems there already. I have got problems already in Ravenhall. Trucks are leaving the site and—excuse the English—shit is flying everywhere, with dust and everything else. So part of this new regulation is to make sure that does not happen again. That is why you have got additional regulation, to make sure they go the extra bit to make sure that these things improve. You should be actually supporting and demanding additional regulation. You should not be moving motions of revocation to do away with the regulations, so they can operate the way they are operating today.

Now, as I said, I hope that all these issues are addressed satisfactorily for the community, because in the absence of that I agree with you: the product should not be going to Bacchus Marsh or Ravenhall or anywhere if the community is concerned it has not been addressed properly. No-one can argue against that.

Members interjecting.

Mr MELHEM: Well, let me tell you, Mr Davis and Mrs McArthur, no-one is going to convince you because that is not your real agenda. Your real agenda is how you can stop the project. We are agreeing on the safety issues. That is what the regulations will actually deliver, but that is not what your real agenda is. Your real agenda is how you can close the project down, how you can shut down the project, because you have got form in this place. This is the fifth time you have tried this, and I am sure it will not be the last one. I will leave my contribution at that. I am sure other people want to make a contribution on this.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:49): The residents of Bacchus Marsh could be forgiven for feeling a bit of deja vu. This issue has been brought to this chamber and discussed and voted on in various forms for quite some time now. Whilst the original motion brought by the opposition would have stopped the vitally important West Gate Tunnel Project from proceeding, I am pleased to see a more focused motion before us now, because in my opinion to try to deliberately drive a wrecking ball through the project smacked of political opportunism at the time, rather than real concern for the community. I was also pleased to talk with some 50-odd residents who made the trip in to stand on the steps of Parliament this morning to make their feelings known.

They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so I also note that this motion is strikingly similar in its desired outcome to one that I read in immediately before the opposition’s. Adding to that sense that we have been here before, what has not changed are the issues that the community and I share in relation to the potential for Maddingley Brown Coal to be the preferred site for the tunnel spoil. Let me be very clear: PFAS is bad news. No matter the concentration, it should not be anywhere near people, fresh waterways, our food sources or our precious native wildlife. The Maddingley Brown Coal site is in proximity to all four. When Maddingley Brown Coal say they have made every effort to prevent leachate seeping out of containment, I do believe them. However, as the saying goes, the best laid plans of mice and men will oft go astray. And in these scenarios it is always time that proves to be the enemy. Facilities need to be maintained and constantly repaired and upgraded, and this is always expensive. When maintenance costs begin to eat into profit, it is safety for the community that is always the victim.

This site is too close—far too close—to a school and far too close to the Barwon River and smaller fresh tributaries that are home to the ever-dwindling population of platypus—one of only five species of monotreme in the world, the others being echidnas. Let that sink in: the only species of its kind in existence, a largely water-dwelling, egg-laying mammal with numbers already drastically in decline. We could put its habitat under threat not by fire or flood but by the deliberate decision to locate a facility that could potentially poison the very element it requires to exist: fresh water.

Then there is the threat to our essential food bowl. The Barwon and Werribee rivers are the water source for a myriad of fruit and vegetable growers, feeding not just Victorians but an export market as well. As a vegan I want to encourage people to ditch animal products and eat all the fantastic fruit and veg grown from this precious water supply and not have to be worried about what the long-term effects of consuming small amounts of PFAS absorbed by these harvests might be.

The irony that the Environment and Planning Committee of this chamber has just begun an inquiry into ecosystem decline whilst out in the west a large, wealthy, multinational company is considering to deliberately contribute to that very decline is not lost on me, and neither should it be on other members here. This is one of those instances where the precautionary principle should apply. Where there is a chance that something could go wrong and the consequences are unknown—low or high risk or potentially disastrous—then we should not proceed. It is for these reasons that I will be supporting the opposition’s motion today.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:54): I rise to support Mr Davis’s motion:

That this house, pursuant to section 38(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, revokes amendment C95 to the Moorabool planning scheme.

And I do so as I have done before. As Mr Meddick said, today a gathering of the community was on the steps of Parliament House, and I was pleased to be there to support them. But I have been out in the community on numerous occasions—in February, when a town hall meeting had 500 people present at very short notice, and again in March, when there were 1500 people in the town square. Unfortunately no other members of Parliament turned up on the second occasion, and the community are very disappointed that the Labor representatives in this electorate have been silent.

But I rise to speak to Mr Davis’s motion on the Moorabool planning scheme. It relates to a subject I have raised many times before—namely, the threat to dump mountains of West Gate Tunnel Project soil, potentially toxic soil, at the Maddingley Brown Coal site in the beautiful community of Bacchus Marsh. This is now my 15th contribution in the chamber on this matter, and I make no apology for that. It is exceptional because the circumstances are exceptional, and I do it again now because this may be the last chance we as a chamber—as a Parliament—have to correct the wrong that has been done. There are many more avenues to fight the cause outside of Parliament, but our vote today may be the final opportunity for this house to intervene directly and see common sense and democratic decency prevail. I am conscious we have very little time to do justice to this matter and that the few minutes we have available for this debate in no way do justice to the size of the threat to the Bacchus Marsh community.

Put simply, the site proposed for this soil processing and storage is utterly unsuited to the purpose. It fails the test on nearly every score. Visiting Bacchus Marsh, as I have done on numerous occasions, you simply cannot ignore the close proximity to schools, healthcare facilities, residential properties—indeed the whole town itself, and that is why the brown coal site was there in the first place—nor driving through can you ignore the size of the roads, so woefully unsuited to 460 additional heavy truck movements every day. Indeed, as I have said before, on the traffic arguments alone this proposal should have been binned. And, worse, they have to go through the iconic Avenue of Honour, that memory to fallen soldiers in the area, which is so precious to the community. That will also be put at risk. But worse still is the threat of contamination, not just to Bacchus Marsh Grammar school, which is just metres away, and the surrounding residential properties but to the vast swathes of prime agricultural land which surround the town and which draw water from the channels so closely adjacent to the Maddingley Brown Coal site.

Had ministers or department secretaries bothered to visit Bacchus Marsh either when making their decisions or in turning up to justify them to the people whose lives they are affecting, they could not have failed to have noticed the lie of the land. Built on hilly, undulating fields, Maddingley Brown Coal borders watercourses which serve some of our state’s finest fruit and vegetable producers. It takes no imagination or specialist knowledge to look at the topography and work out what happens when the rain falls. This is a site where no waterborne pollution should ever be risked. But that it may include PFAS-contaminated soil, the health effects of which are still imperfectly understood, makes it even more unconscionable. It is just inconceivable that in the entire state of Victoria there is not a flatter, drier, safer site, distant from populations and purpose built for this project that could have been found. This project has been years in the planning and yet this most basic requirement has been overlooked. So the scale, the geography and the physical situation of the project at the heart of a small residential community mean this idea should never have got off the ground.

Beyond even the inadequacy of the site, the partners chosen to operate it are hugely questionable. Corporate social responsibility, it is fair to say, is not a phrase they appear to understand. Indeed Moorabool Shire Council have been forced to take enforcement action against the company at VCAT over their existing operations. It is evident that throughout this process Maddingley Brown Coal have done nothing to convince the community that their desire for profit is balanced by any consideration of the health and happiness of their neighbours whatsoever.

But these are simply the problems with the proposal. I can understand that sometimes unpopular proposals arise. Government projects will never be universally popular. Large infrastructure in particular always creates losers as well as winners. The issue here is the process. As anyone involved in business knows, to do anything constructive in this state involves satisfying a huge number of obstacles—perhaps ‘safeguards’ is a fairer word. In this case, however, at every stage it is the process which has failed so badly. The whole point of our planning process, of our public health regulators and of our environmental laws is to stop inappropriate proposals getting through and allow only the considered and appropriate to make it past the drawing board. What has happened here is the complete subversion of the process. Planning processes, environmental laws—these are the reason that so blatantly wrong a proposal has got as far as it has got. So why then has this happened? It is clear it has happened because at every level this government was hell-bent on making it happen—to deliver a political promise to rescue a project in trouble. They have rammed it through at lightning speed. As Mr Davis said, the details of where you put the tunnel spoil should have been worked out years ago in advance of the project and the contract being signed.

As I have said in this house before, it is one of the worst cases of sustained mistreatment of a community by government I have ever seen—a transparent campaign from ministers who simply would not take no for an answer. My plea throughout has been that the people of Bacchus Marsh should not be made to pay for the ineptitude of the government. They cannot be collateral damage, chosen as the easiest solution to the problem of toxic soil, which should rightly have been considered at the very beginning of these works.

We have seen consultation conducted cynically, not widely, as Mr Melhem suggested. We have seen planning decisions removed from local hands. We have seen the Environment Protection Act 1970 altered by delegated legislation. This was perhaps the worst of all. It was not simply a technicality. The new regulations introduced without consultation or parliamentary debate mark a massive watering down of longstanding environmental protections surrounding the storage of potentially contaminated soil. They include the removal of the existing licensing process, with its requirements for public consultation and the fact that it can be challenged in VCAT; the reduction from 500 metres to 200 metres of the buffer zone required between sensitive land use and houses, health services and schools; and removing the safeguards previously placed on contractors.

The minister’s exemption certificate claims that ‘existing regulation’—that is, disposal in licensed landfill sites—is ‘disproportionately onerous in comparison to the risks to human health and the environment’. Tell that to the people of Bacchus Marsh, I might say. It says the regulations and environment management plan provide a ‘simpler, faster process’ which is ‘therefore less burdensome on industry’. In the minister’s own words it states:

… the proposed Regulations do not provide for public consultation regarding development of EMPs, nor review of EPA decisions by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (both of which would be available for works approval or licensing decision making processes required …

I said before I think it is an abuse of process to use a statutory rule to bypass full parliamentary process when the matter at hand is as controversial as this. It was even less acceptable at a time when Parliament had been unable to exercise its normal oversight. In short, we have seen protests ignored, letters unanswered, decisions unjustified and legislation rewritten by ministerial fiat. Even as an opposition politician it has been extraordinarily uncomfortable to explain to people just how badly they have been let down by the system which we all represent.

This government has cynically failed to consult meaningfully. Where they have consulted, they have ridden roughshod over every objection. The approach from department bureaucrats to local officials has been appalling. Documents have been denied and unreasonable deadlines demanded. There has been a total lack of consultation let alone the collaboration one level of government should reasonably expect from another. It is appalling that Moorabool shire has been reduced to issuing FOIs to obtain information. They have been shabbily treated at every turn.

We have a chance in this house to put a brake on this process, to force ministers to reconsider, to engage with the communities they have ignored to date and to restore the established environmental and planning protections they have disregarded. This house has once already acted to uphold proper process in demanding the government release documents relating to the West Gate Tunnel Project.

I want finally to come to the most recent development. It is a further indication that the situation I have outlined is not the product of my instinctive opposition to the Andrews government or of a local, single-issue, nimby protest group. As yesterday’s Age reported, the EPA has been forced into a humiliating backdown. In the face of legal action from the Moorabool Environment Group and Bacchus Marsh Grammar school they have conceded their grant of an environmental management plan to the Maddingley Brown Coal site was legally invalid. The EPA’s solicitor, Christine Giles, admitted formally that the regulator did not have the power to issue approvals for Maddingley to receive West Gate Tunnel Project waste. The environmental management plan submitted by Maddingley Brown Coal failed to satisfy the requirements set out in the new EPA regulations governing tunnel-boring soil—yes, even those cynically watered-down provisions.

It is extraordinarily damning that this environmental management plan, the rigour of which process Minister Wynne relies on repeatedly in the planning approval we now consider, can be so flawed. This extraordinary oversight occurred because from the start pressure has been placed on all those involved by the political masters behind this promise.

If this were a normal instance of amending a local planning scheme, I would have considerable sympathy with the argument that we should not become involved. In the normal course of things individual planning matters should not be in the purview of the Legislative Council. But this is the clearest of special cases. Here it is a minister of this Parliament who overrode local planning powers. It is a minister of this Parliament who disallowed via secondary legislation and without consultation public announcement or explanation hugely significant environmental protection legislation. At every stage it has been this government which has bent the rules or torn them up entirely to ram through this project.

It is not simply another planning decision; it is far more than that. It is not even about the proposal for Bacchus Marsh, important though it is to stop that. It is about doing the right thing for those Victorians to restore their faith not just in our planning process and our legislation but indeed in democracy itself. The government must be held to account for their behaviour in this case, and I urge all members of the chamber to look to do that today.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:09): I rise to speak to the coalition’s motion 436, which seeks to revoke amendment C95 to the Moorabool planning scheme. The issue of dumping contaminated soil from the West Gate Tunnel Project in Bacchus Marsh is something on which I have fought since day one, and to say that it is an incredibly serious matter for many constituents in the Marsh and surrounds would be an understatement. Once again we find ourselves speaking about this issue. It is like groundhog day, only worse for the residents of the Moorabool shire as they live in the uncertainty of when and what will be dumped in their town. When will the community’s and local council’s voices be heard?

I took great pleasure in meeting the residents on the steps of Parliament this morning, a passionate group of concerned locals taking the time out of their own day to protest against an issue close to their hearts and very close to their homes. And is the government listening? It was not that long ago that I asked a constituency question relating to the then latest development in the toxic soil dumping issue, and that was approval by the EPA to send the soil to Maddingley Brown Coal in my electorate and to Hi-Quality in Bulla. I asked back then: how could the EPA grant approval to dump toxic soil at these sites without being open and honest with the community about the risk-based trigger levels of PFAS whilst this soil is in containment? It seems that I was not that far away from highlighting a massive deficiency within the EPA approval process.

It was announced yesterday that the EPA had reversed the approval after they became aware they did not have the authority to give it. The EPA admitted that it did not have sufficient information to make this decision—astounding. How on earth does this occur in this day and age? Surely with such a massive infrastructure project costing billions of dollars and such a massive health issue of having toxic soil in the middle of Bacchus Marsh you would have thought that all processes and approvals were and are beyond reproach. This has seemingly not been the case. And for the record, I am not opposed to the West Gate Tunnel Project. What I am opposed to is the dumping of toxic soil in Bacchus Marsh and any other community close to agricultural grounds.

Well done to the people of Bacchus Marsh who continue to fight against toxic soil dumping, and well done to those standing on the steps of Parliament today. Your voice is being heard by some of us in this place, as you will soon see when we vote on this motion. I urge this chamber to support this motion and stand with the residents when they say that toxic soil is not welcome in Bacchus Marsh.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:12): I rise to make a contribution in opposition to this motion standing in Mr Davis’s name calling for the revocation of this planning scheme amendment. I have had the benefit of listening to the debate in this chamber this morning, and I think Mr Melhem very aptly summarised the real motivation of those opposite in regard to this project—that is, to run interference on any government project, disingenuously coming in here and claiming that they care about all manner of things to do with the community’s concern. With all I have heard today—particularly when I listen to the debate and I read the notes and I look at what the government is doing and will be doing to protect the community—it is very frustrating and annoying to witness the level of fear that is being driven into the community and the confusion that is being whipped up by those opposite around those particular matters. What I will do in my contribution is actually seek to reassure the community about some of the measures that will be put in place and have been looked at, and I agreed with Mr Melhem before when he mentioned that we look at what the science is telling us. We rely on evidence from experts in regard to this matter rather than simply stating things without basis, which has been the effective approach of those opposite.

There have been a number of inaccuracies put from the opposition benches today, and I will just go through and respond to some of them. One of the inaccuracies—this is where things get conflated—is that planning approval is not separate to EPA approval. They are two separate things. It is an administrative matter for the EPA as an independent regulator, so they are two separate things. The EPA has determined it would be appropriate to remake its decision, and that has no effect on the Minister for Planning’s decision. It is important that we make sure that that is correctly laid out so people can understand that.

We have always said no soil will be moved from the site until relevant approvals have been provided by the EPA. So again that is a protective measure to make sure the community is protected and the area is protected. Put simply, before the proposal can commence, the EPA approval must be in place. So, again, this is the agency that is going to be responsible for ensuring appropriate approvals are in place.

In regard to enforcement action by the council, yes, the council has taken enforcement action, and it is their right to do so. The amendment does not take any enforcement power away from the council. They will remain the responsible authority for ensuring that the site and Maddingley Brown Coal comply with the stringent planning requirements.

Mrs McArthur: They do not comply now.

Ms TERPSTRA: Well, it is the council’s responsibility to ensure enforcement. Look, this is ridiculous. This is completely ridiculous, because the bottom line is the agency that is responsible is the council. Whether it is this project or any other project it is the same process. The council is responsible for ensuring enforcement.

For those opposite to say it is simply a power grab is ridiculous. Where the power grab comes in is from those opposite, who want to run interference on any government project that they can, because I will tell you right now, Deputy President, this government has listened to the people of the western suburbs who tell us that their roads are choked, and that is why we are building this project—so we can make sure that people can get to work and get to where they need to go. For example, we are building new hospitals and we are building new schools because we recognise the growth that is occurring in the western suburbs. This West Gate Tunnel Project is going to benefit the people of the western suburbs rather than those opposite sitting there throwing out ridiculous commentary designed to do nothing other than provoke fear within the community.

So, having corrected those issues on the record, now what I want to do is spend a little bit of time—because I do not have much time; I have got about 10 minutes—to just reassure the community. I cannot stand here and guarantee that everything is going to be fantastic; okay? That is just not the way these projects roll; all projects have challenges. But what I can say is that the government and the agencies involved are going to do everything they can to make sure that the community’s concerns are addressed and that there are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that any environmental concerns are appropriately dealt with.

Just before I move on to that I just want to explain what PFAS is. PFAS is found everywhere, and again I think those opposite want to conflate this with what happened at Fiskville, which is what Mr Melhem talked about. You know, the situation at Fiskville was quite different to what we find in regard to this situation, because PFAS is found in a lot of things. It is found in cleaning chemicals, it is found in carpet and it is found in a number of everyday household cleaning items. What happened at Fiskville was an entirely different matter, because it was a build-up of other chemicals that concentrated in an area and caused toxic impacts to workers who were working there on that site and who were training. They were firefighters who were training.

So most of us are exposed to very low levels of PFAS in everyday life, and as I said some of it is found in furniture, carpets, stain treatments or stain resistance, clothing and fast-food or packaged-food containers. So, yes, I agree with Mr Meddick. You do not want these sorts of chemicals in your environment. But most of it is at low levels, and where you have projects where some of these things are in high levels there are processes that are put in place to treat it.

In regard to the soil, extensive testing of PFAS in groundwater at that site has already shown that levels of PFAS in the groundwater from soil to be extracted from the tunnel-boring machines are expected to be low and at safe levels for the community and the environment with appropriate controls. Mr Melhem touched on that earlier. There has already been soil sampling done on that site. So to try and say that the 3 million tonnes of soil is all contaminated and all dirty is just simply untrue.

Some of the other mechanisms that have been put in place will be the groundwater testing on the West Gate Tunnel Project. What has basically been shown is that to date the levels of PFAS in the soil are expected to be low and there will be appropriate controls put in place. Currently the level of PFAS in the groundwater is slightly above drinking water standards and generally below the accepted threshold for water that we can safely swim in. I just want to make that distinction. The assessment has already been done, and clearly it is slightly above drinking water standards and at an acceptable threshold that you could swim in.

Leachate will be prevented from entering the waterways, wetlands and groundwaters through design and engineering of facilities. I think Mr Melhem talked about that earlier. There is going to be a wastewater treatment plan required on site, which will remove any traces of PFAS from wastewater, which then leaves clean water that meets the drinking standards. Obviously the soil that is removed from the area needs to be treated. It needs to be treated with water, and the wastewater treatment plant will then treat that water that is used for treating the soil.

The strengthening of the base of the storage bays where the soils will be kept will also be tested to provide that the system will not allow wastewater to reach groundwater. That is one of the things that has been put in place to ensure that the water does not leach into other groundwater holdings.

There are lots of other mechanisms that have been put in place. I will just talk about groundwater again for a second. The groundwater table is protected by 40 metres of low-permeability sand, soil and clay. I will just mention the holding bays. In addition, the holding bays will have a 300-millimetre lime-and-cement-stabilised compact clay layer, and the leachate sedimentation pond and containment cells will have a geosynthetic clay liner, high-density polyethylene geomembranes and cushion geotextiles. So every mechanism has been put in place to ensure that any wastewater does not leach out and get into the groundwater table. Now, there will be ongoing monitoring of the groundwater and water from the spoil for PFAS. So it is not something that the government is putting in place and just walking away from; there is going to be continual ongoing monitoring.

In terms of surface water, stormwater run-off from the containment cell will be collected in drains and moved to an existing stormwater management system. Again, nothing is going to get into the stormwater system. Processes have been put in place to ensure that does not happen. There will be installation of sediment control structures and regular sampling conducted by third parties, so it is at arm’s length. Again, it is going to make sure that the sampling is conducted on an ongoing basis to ensure that the mechanisms that are put in place protect the groundwater and surface water.

I will just return to some of the other issues that have been raised. I know Mr Melhem talked about air quality and dust. I will talk about noise and traffic management plans. On air quality and dust, water carts will operate across the site spraying exposed surfaces and unsealed roads, and there will be daily visual dust inspections carried out and monthly reviews of air quality and dust management plans. Trucks and machinery must meet all EPA air quality requirements. The monitoring of dust must also apply to the use of any unsealed roads for haulage. There will be tracking of complaints for offsite dust discharge. You can see that the government is going to carry out ongoing monitoring of all of these issues. These are issues that the community have raised. There will be the use of dust collection gauges and assessments of results.

In regard to flora and fauna there will be established protection zones around the areas of native vegetation to be retained. There will be the engagement of a qualified ecologist to carry out preclearance surveys of vegetation to be removed where this is necessary, and there will also be an implementation of a vegetation offset for the four small trees that need to be removed. The government has considered all issues in terms of water, flora and fauna.

In terms of the visual impacts, an earth wall of between 3 and 5 metres high will be constructed around the site, and there will be the use of directional lights targeted at work areas and integration of completed containment cells and landscapes throughout the revegetation. So there has been consideration of visual impacts, air quality and dust, and noise. We understand this is a large project. Of course people living nearby will be concerned about the noise, the dust and what they are seeing. It is changing.

Mrs McArthur interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: I am really fed up with the ridiculous catcalls from you, Mrs McArthur, because you do not care about the people of the west. All you care about is running interference on government projects. What Mr Melhem said in this chamber earlier is spot on. You people are a disgrace. Deputy President, I think I am entitled to be heard in silence without the ridiculous interjections.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Terpstra, you invited that by addressing Mrs McArthur directly—

Ms TERPSTRA: Excuse me, Deputy President—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Excuse me. The Chair is speaking. You did invite the interjection across the chamber by addressing Mrs McArthur by her name.

Ms TERPSTRA: I did no such thing.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ms Terpstra, are you reflecting on the Chair?

Ms TERPSTRA: No, I am wanting to continue my contribution. I have 3 minutes left on the clock.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Your attitude towards the Chair is not acceptable, but please continue with your contribution.

Ms TERPSTRA: Thank you, Deputy President. I will continue by talking about the impacts of how we will be managing traffic in regard to this matter. Traffic management plans are required to manage potential impacts during both construction and operation of the project. A survey of the current conditions of the roads that will be used will be carried out. A local road maintenance agreement will be put in place between Maddingley Brown Coal and the Moorabool Shire Council. Trucks carrying spoil will access the site by a preferred route to minimise impacts to local roads, using the same route for unloaded trucks during night and evening periods or other agreed occasions to reduce potential noise impacts on residents along selected routes. These are issues that have been raised by the community, and we are addressing them. A traffic liaison group will be established, and there will be weekly monitoring of key roads that are going to be used throughout the project. The Avenue of Honour will not be used on Anzac Day and during special annual events. A report was submitted to Heritage Victoria to consider the impacts of the additional trucks on the Avenue of Honour trees, and it concluded that there are unlikely to be any adverse impacts on the trees along the avenue from increased traffic or harm to the cultural heritage significance of the place.

All of these issues that have been raised were not raised because of any real concern. The real agenda here is to run interference on any government projects—to make sure that they cannot deliver for the people of the western suburbs, who desperately need improvements in their roads, who desperately need to be able to get to and from work. The government is investing in the west more than ever. This project will slash 20 minutes off a trip from places like Werribee, Hoppers Crossing and Tarneit to the CBD. We are investing $1.8 billion to upgrade eight key roads in the outer west and lift the standard of maintenance across the arterial road network in the west. We are increasing train services on every train line in the western suburbs. The Metro Tunnel will mean the Sunbury train services will increase by 60 per cent and Werribee’s and Williamstown’s will increase by 24 per cent, with room in the city loop freed up. Train travel times from the west will be slashed by up to 40 minutes a day, depending on where you are. So you can see why this project matters so much to the people of the west, because what we know is that the western suburbs are booming.

The population in the west is going through exponential growth, and it is important that this level of investment is not only in our roads but also in our hospitals and our public schools—that all of those things continue to be invested in. This also will take 5000 cars a day out of the south of the city, relieving congestion on King Street and Spencer Street. It will take 9300 trucks per day off residential streets, with 24/7 truck bans, giving local streets back to local residents in the inner west. These bans will mean a 84 per cent truck reduction on Francis Street and Somerville Road, a 79 per cent reduction in trucks travelling on Buckley Street between Geelong Road and Whitehall Street and a 95 per cent reduction on Moore Street— (Time expired)

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (11:27): This issue has been going on for a long time now and has plagued the West Gate Tunnel Project. PFAS contamination was found during the construction of the West Gate Tunnel. Now, PFAS is, contrary to what many people have been saying, regarded increasingly as a dangerously toxic substance in America. The question of who had responsibility for handling this toxic waste led to a stand-off between the government and the construction company. The solution sought by this government involves mining and landfill sites operated by Maddingley Brown Coal and Hi-Quality in Bulla. The proposal led to the Bacchus Marsh community and Moorabool council opposing the proposal and seeking further information from the government, and the EPA approved the environmental management plan for these two sites to receive the tunnel-boring machine spoil. It said it had assessed the plans from the perspective of potential environmental impacts, such as run-off, odour and potential land and surface groundwater risk. I think they regret the position they took on that now.

Planning approvals are still required for the site. Today’s disallowance motion from the opposition seeks to put a spanner in these works, and I am going to support the motion for a number of reasons. First of all, the Sustainable Australia Party believes that public health and the environment must take precedence over economic considerations. We have taken this position over climate change, planning for our cities and also the economy post the coronavirus pandemic, and we believe the same principle must apply here. The government says the health risk to the public and the environment is minimal, but to be candid we have heard that too often from governments, and it does not always work out that way.

Second, the government has not been forthcoming with Moorabool council’s request for detailed information concerning the proposed soil dumping and the associated health risks. My party puts a premium on transparency and local involvement in planning decisions. If there is nothing wrong with the plan, why are these documents not being made available to the council and other parties who have legitimate concerns? The council has taken a responsible position on this with its community and with health and the environment involved. Often these decisions made at council level should be respected. They should be respected by the government and not overridden.

Third, we now see the EPA admitting it was wrong to approve the plan to send the soil to the Bacchus Marsh site, just days before the Moorabool Environment Group and Bacchus Marsh Grammar were due to have their appeal against the decision considered in the Supreme Court. This decision is absolutely extraordinary, and the fact that the EPA gave the approval without proper legal grounds to do so and then withdrew the approval when facing a legal challenge will diminish public confidence in the EPA. Residents should not have to take these matters to the Supreme Court to have them dealt with properly. It of course places a cloud over the government’s repeated reassurance that this project and others are safe because the EPA has examined and approved them. The EPA’s solicitor has now admitted that the EPA did not have the power to issue approvals for Maddingley to receive the waste. It admitted that the environmental management plan submitted by Maddingley Brown Coal did not address all of the matters set out in EPA regulations governing the tunnel-boring soil.

Finally, the West Gate Tunnel Project unfortunately cannot be stopped, but it is not the economy-saving project the government claims. It produced the project as a pacifier to the big construction and big finance companies after it closed the door on their billion-dollar baby, the east–west link. Like the east–west link, the West Gate Tunnel will not be the solution to Melbourne’s congestion problems. The simple reason for that is the federal and state governments are running a population industry resulting in the number of cars on our roads increasing by 70 000 each year.

Members interjecting.

Mr HAYES: Ms Terpstra, I do not think it is going to fix the traffic problems. Until we stop the population Ponzi scheme, projects like the West Gate Tunnel will not resolve anything. Meanwhile motorists on CityLink will get slugged indefinitely to pay for it, and the residents and fruit and vegetable growers of Bacchus Marsh are expected to pay the price for it. Have I gone 5 minutes?

Dr Ratnam: Five minutes more.

Mr HAYES: No, no. Anyway, the Bacchus Marsh people and our fruit and vegetable gardens are put at risk to pay for this dumping of soil, which the government has not considered properly as to where they are going to do this. Once again, I think the government has let down its supporters like it did with the taxi industry. Lifelong Labor supporters, Labor towns like Bacchus Marsh and Bulla are regarded as fair game for toxic soil dumping.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:33): We have in many ways debated this issue before, and before I get into the substance of the issue I would like to thank the members of the Bacchus Marsh community that have contacted my office. Your emails were respectful, passionate and considered, and raised some new considerations related to this proposal that we had not considered earlier. I can certainly appreciate why you are so concerned about bearing a significant burden of the large infrastructure projects in Melbourne.

There are things that have been raised by this community that I can certainly agree with. The community engagement, consultation and transparency from the government has been terrible. I have no doubt that this is the case. I have heard these complaints many times in my time here, and it does seem to be a weakness of this government. The fact that Bacchus Marsh is a windy area does add some weight to the argument that this site may have some problems. I am not sure, however, that any community would be happy to receive large volumes of soil that has been framed as toxic. When considering the previous regulatory disallowance motion, we did quite a lot of background research into PFAS, the current scientific understanding and what is known about the risks. There is some evidence of a risk from PFAS internationally, but the Australian federal government expert health panel has stated that there is currently very little evidence on the human harms from low-level exposure.

This is perhaps enough to reconsider its use in everyday products such as Teflon pans, fire resistant furniture, waterproof clothing and some floorings. As many people who emailed me pointed out, it is persistent in the environment, so these risks, even if small, should be considered, and restricting use may be wise in an area of developing understanding.

The current proposal, however, does seem to be taking a cautious and conservative approach to managing the spoil from the West Gate Tunnel boring project, with consistent monitoring and treatment of the soil to ensure any risk is managed. Notwithstanding the concerns of the community, on this occasion I do accept that this is an adequate solution. We are right to take a cautious approach to PFAS risk management, but we should also be concerned about the risks related to throwing a spanner into major projects and putting hundreds of people out of work.

I would like to address a couple of other concerns raised by community members before I conclude my contribution. Several community members stated that Maddingley Brown Coal have a history of non-compliance and breaches of EPA licence conditions. My team reviewed several of their audits over the past years, including one from March this year, and we could not find evidence of this. There were some risks highlighted, some suggestions for changes or improvements to monitoring and recommendations for other works. However, my reading of these audits suggests the company was generally compliant and cooperative with the operator.

Whilst I have not been convinced to support this motion, I am convinced that the government has not treated the community well. It may be that they could not provide the result that this community wants by choosing a different site. They certainly could have been more transparent, better at communication and treated them with more compassion, and I hope that their promises about dust control and traffic management will bear true. The Liberal Democrats will not support the motion, but we do call on the government to do better by the residents of Bacchus Marsh.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:36): I rise to support the Bacchus Marsh community that were on the steps of Parliament today as well as the whole of my western suburbs community, who understand that when we grab the soil out of the West Gate Tunnel Project it goes through Maribyrnong, it goes through Hobsons Bay, it goes through Wyndham, it goes through Brimbank, it goes through Melton and it goes now up to Bacchus Marsh. For a government who believe that they supports schools, they have not been listening to the local schools in Bacchus Marsh.

Bacchus Marsh Grammar actually wrote a letter to Transurban on 28 February this year, and they copied in the Minister for Planning. They also wrote directly to the Minister for Planning in May of this year. They believe that the Minister for Planning has chosen to ignore the school’s reasonable request to date for input into this decision. They believe that the minister’s office also has ignored the broader Bacchus Marsh community and the reasonable concerns by making a decision that is against the best interests of the town’s people, their livelihood, the environment and the future. For a government who espouses to support schools, you have ignored Bacchus Marsh Grammar and the other schools in the community in that area. You have also ignored the local councils, who are greatly concerned, as well as the community, who would just like the information.

I have spoken to your advisers and have also been lobbied by your department. When I have spoken to them I have just requested, ‘Could you please give the community the information?’. They just want to know what is going on. The transport study says ‘450 truck movements a day’. Well, you cannot even tell them when it is going to start and when it is going to end. Is it going to be starting in February and finishing in October? Is it six months? Is it going to be 24 hours, seven days a week? No, no—you cannot even let them have that information so they can make informed decisions if they are going to be putting up with those truck movements rumbling past their houses. If they are renters and if you give them that information, they might choose to actually rent somewhere else. But you are not giving them that information, and that information is critical to their knowing if they are going to be able to sleep at night and if they want to actually stay there while you are moving your toxic, contaminated soil.

In all my years of sitting on council—to reclass it from waste, and now you are calling it spoil and then changing it to normal waste. When you are making a tip there is 500 metres around it—‘Oh no, we’re going to make it 250. We are going to do this under regulations’, even though the planning act says 500 metres. Now you have actually been caught out by the EPA. Rather than going through a normal process where you go through the council, you have turned around and stated, ‘No, no, we’re going to put it on the minister’s desk, and he is going to rubberstamp it’—so quick. This is the same government that last year had its chest out saying, ‘We’re not going to let Transurban get away with this because it’s written in the contract’, but now, no. They knew about this soil. They are digging a tunnel. The community knew too, and the community also knew that you were going through Coode Island. You could have done WestLink straight down Footscray Road and avoided going past oil refineries down at Newport and going past Coode Island. But no, ‘We can’t just build a couple of ramps and then do WestLink. No, we’re going to make this the West Gate Tunnel Project’, and put two together and absolutely make a dog’s breakfast of Yarraville, making sure that you are going to grab all that dirty, dirty soil. I will leave it at that.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:42): I rise to speak briefly in support of this motion to revoke amendment C95 to the Moorabool planning scheme to allow toxic waste from the West Gate Tunnel Project to be dumped in Bacchus Marsh. The Greens position on the West Gate Tunnel Project is well known; we have opposed it from the outset. It is a dud project that should have never been started. It has been mismanaged, and we will not facilitate it. It is a project designed by Transurban to feather their own nest at the expense of the people of Victoria; a terrible project that will increase pollution, and due to mismanagement the government is now running around trying to manage dumping large volumes of toxic waste.

Then we find out today that the EPA has admitted that it did not have legal grounds to approve the Maddingley Brown Coal environmental plan for its landfill site to receive PFAS-contaminated soil. This is what happens when projects are ill thought out and rushed and when communities and the environment are treated by governments as subservient to commercial objectives.

I have previously outlined our concerns with the EPA regulations for storing toxic waste from the West Gate Tunnel Project, and it is astounding that after the debate we have had on the regulations, the EPA was unable to apply them correctly. Quite frankly it does not bode well for the EPA’s assurances about compliance. As I understand it the planning minister relied upon the EPA approval, now admitted to have been unlawful, when making the planning amendment we are debating. This just strengthens the case for this disallowance to be supported.

The fast-tracking of this project has not just led to the EPA bungling its own process and approval, but it has also meant that community consultation has largely gone by the wayside. The community’s genuine concerns about the proximity of the facilities to homes and schools, truck movements and compliance concerns are being too easily dismissed by a government desperately trying to fix its own mess.

I want to pay tribute to the Bacchus Marsh community and the Moorabool Environment Group for advocating so strongly for their communities. They have demonstrated that governments cannot just roll over communities, but instead communities can hold governments to account.In summary, the West Gate Tunnel is a bad project, and its mismanagement and bungling by the government is not an excuse for ignoring proper community consultation or proper environmental protections. I will be supporting the revocation.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:44): There are 42 seconds. I will be very quick and just thank members for their contributions. This is a very serious matter. This is about the safety and the future of Bacchus Marsh. It is about the safety of the school. It is about the safety of the environment. It is very clear that the government has botched the process. Even their own agencies admit that they have botched the process. But this chamber is entitled to act as a vent to actually protect the community and to intervene where planning processes of this type have gone so woefully wrong.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:44): I just wanted to address the community consultation. I cannot. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, that was my mistake. Ms Taylor was still on the list, and I called Mr Davis. I am sorry, and I do apologise to the house.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:51): I move:

That the consideration of notice of motion, general business, 453, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

E-cigarettes

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:52): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, smoking was responsible for 9.3 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2015 and for more than one in every eight deaths;

(2) the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019 report shows that despite a de facto ban on nicotine e-liquids, the rate of vaping has more than doubled since 2016, with 2.5 per cent of the population aged 14 years and over now using e-cigarettes;

(3) the report showed that vaping is primarily used as a quitting tool by smokers, with 44 per cent using it to quit, 32 per cent to cut down on smoking, 23 per cent to avoid relapse and 27 per cent to reduce harm from smoking;

(4) according to the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Physicians, nicotine vaping is at least 95 per cent safer than smoking;

(5) regulation needs to strike the right balance between providing access for addicted smokers, while enforcing a minimum age of sale and strict penalties to discourage uptake by youth;

and calls on the government to support tobacco harm reduction by nicotine vaping as a safer alternative for smokers who are unable to quit through other methods and legalise nicotine liquid for vaping as a consumer product with appropriate and risk-proportionate regulations.

I am pleased that there are so many people here to listen to it! I am pleased to rise to speak on this important motion. It may seem a trivial matter to some. Of what significance are these new devices, probably first used by hipsters in Brunswick? To understand this we really need to appreciate the impact of tobacco on the health of Australians.

As the motion states, smoking is estimated to be responsible for 9.3 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2015 and was responsible for more than one in eight deaths. Smoking is widely recognised as being the largest single contributing factor to the disease burden in Australia. Many Victorians have had to deal with the tragedy of smoking-related illnesses in their families, including members of this chamber and me with my own family. It is a very important issue.

To understand where vaping and e-cigarettes fit into the picture, it is worth reflecting briefly on some of the history of tobacco harm reduction and the development of traditional nicotine replacement therapies. One of the early pioneers in this area was the late Professor Michael Russell, who began working in the addiction research unit of the institute of psychiatry in London. His early work highlighted the role of nicotine in smoking addiction, with the ARU conducting the first studies of nicotine chewing gum and also pioneering work on nicotine nasal spray and the efficacy of nicotine patches.

The point of all this can be summarised in Professor Russell’s most famous quote from 1976. He said, ‘People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar’. In one of his later papers, published in 1991 and titled ‘The future of nicotine replacement’, he anticipated the e-cigarette industry. I will read two quotes from that paper, as they are perhaps the best illustration of the gravity of this debate. I quote:

Some time in the 21st Century we would see the rapid demise of tobacco smoking. How soon this can be achieved will depend on how soon we adopt rational policies. It is essential for policy makers to understand and accept that people would not use tobacco unless it contained nicotine, and that they are more likely to give it up if a reasonably pleasant and less harmful alternative source of nicotine is available.

This is what we have now seen. It seems that one of the problems that opponents have with vaping is that it is pleasurable to consumers, but this is exactly the reason that it is effective. Also in this paper he stated, and I quote:

It is not so much the efficacy of new nicotine delivery systems as temporary aids to cessation, but their potential as long-term alternatives to tobacco that makes virtual elimination of tobacco a realistic future target.

Conventional nicotine replacement therapies have played a role in reducing smoking prevalence. For many people they just do not hit the mark though. While Australia was considered a world leader in tobacco control, despite some of the highest taxes in the world and being amongst the first to introduce many other measures their efforts have failed to translate into any rapid decline in smoking rates recently. Instead we have a growing illicit tobacco market run by organised crime and working-class people with less money in their pockets.

Amongst OECD countries Australia is on its own in prohibiting the possession and sale of liquid nicotine. In overseas jurisdictions they have seen smoking rates fall significantly, corresponding with higher rates of e-cigarette use. A survey on e-cigarette use and attitudes in Great Britain conducted on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health was published in 2019. In England the smoking rate amongst adults aged from 18 fell from 19.8 per cent in 2011 to 14.4 per cent in 2018. Meanwhile the number of people using vapes has grown to 7.1 per cent of the adult population. The main reasons given for using e-cigarettes were to quit smoking and prevent relapse. The UK and New Zealand have models where formal smoking cessation services and their public health institutions more broadly support the use of vaping to help people stop smoking. They also have sensible regulations and age restrictions, and with the passage of some recent reforms in New Zealand they also banned advertising. The laws in Canada vary in each province but are broadly the same. I could cite studies and examples of sensible regulations all day long, but the key point here is that even the vast majority of opponents to vaping agree that it is safer than smoking. Some dispute the claim from Public Health England that vaping is at least 95 per cent safer than smoking, but very few dispute that there are less chemicals and less toxins present in e-cigarette vapor.

When this issue has been raised before in this chamber the issue of vaping-related injuries that occurred in the United States has been raised. But this does not highlight a problem with a legal and sensibly regulated industry; it highlights the dangers of prohibition and black market products. We know that vitamin E acetate was found in 48 of 51 patients that were examined by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, and this was related to THC or cannabis vaping products. There is no evidence that this had anything to do with vaping at all. There have also been concerns that some e-liquids sold in Australia have unknown or dangerous ingredients. A great way to resolve this uncertainty is a legal and sensibly regulated industry. The Liberal Democrats oppose excessive and restrictive regulations, but consumer transparency is pretty reasonable: you should get what you pay for.

This debate, however, should not be a back-and-forth debate about citing our preferred research or whether the tobacco industry is trying some new trick to hoodwink us all. We should be considering the rights of consumers to choose a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco. It is almost a catchphrase these days to talk about the lived experience of various groups. The budget includes this phrase multiple times, and I do not have a problem with this. The budget includes a proposal for a mental health service that is co-designed by people with a lived experience of mental illness, and this may well make for a better service. But this debate should really reflect on the lived experience of the more than half a million people in Australia who use e-cigarettes, the vast majority of whom are ex-smokers.

The Liberal Democrats have long been supporters of vaping, and I have heard many stories of people who credit vaping with improving their health or even saving their lives. I encourage members to actually listen to these stories of real people if they want to truly understand the issue. There is an Australian Senate select committee currently inquiring into tobacco harm reduction which has received over 8000 personal submissions. Obviously I cannot summarise all of those in this debate, but to get a bit of a sense of it I will read a few highlights from just the first page of submissions.

Ms Maureen Steele, 51, works as a health education officer for the New South Wales Ministry of Health and started smoking at the age of 18. After trying to quit cold turkey and with the assistance of various nicotine replacement therapies, she tried vaping 18 months ago. Three years ago her carbon monoxide level was 32 parts per million. For most smokers it is about 17 and for healthy people it is 3. Her CO level is now 8. Ms Yvette Hopkins, age 45, is an administration assistant in the health sector. She started smoking at the age of 15. She and her husband tried all the standard ways of quitting, including various nicotine replacement therapies, but were not successful.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

COVID-19

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:00): My question is to the Leader of the Government. In a briefing this morning the chief health officer (CHO), Brett Sutton, confirmed that the government is likely to soon introduce a permit system to allow public protests and demonstrations. When will this permit system commence?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:00): I thank Mr O’Donohue for his question. I have had advice only today that that was what was discussed at the briefing this morning, and I have not had an opportunity to seek any further advice on the details of any such proposal. So I will have to take it on notice and get you a formal response from government, because I do not have those details at hand.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:00): I ask by way of supplementary: Minister, how many protesters will be allowed at any one demonstration or protest, and why is such a permit system required in what should be a free and democratic community?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:01): As was reasonably inherent in my answer to your substantive question, I do not have any details in relation to any government announcements in relation to that matter, but I do welcome the feedback of—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Ms SYMES: It is good, isn’t it, that information is being shared with parties of interest? I know that David Limbrick has been very passionate about this issue and has been grateful for the opportunity to speak directly with the CHO. You are actually being involved in the development of policy, and I would have thought that is something that you have been asking for. There are no formal announcements, and I am not in a position to do so at this time.

Veterans mental health

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:02): I have a question without notice for the Minister for Veterans. Senator Hinch a few years ago advocated very strongly for veterans and their mental health. In particular he successfully campaigned to have a defence department building at 310 St Kilda Road, which has been empty for around 20 years, gifted for veterans as a new home for the Australian National Veterans Arts Museum, otherwise known as ANVAM. This would become an inclusive hub for veterans, promoting wellness through art. As at 2017 the federal government stated that they were awaiting action from the state’s end. My question is: what is the current status of this project, and have conversations commenced with your federal counterpart, the Honourable Darren Chester, MP, to get this project funded and moving?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:03): Can I thank Mr Grimley for his question. I know he did say that former Senator Hinch was really keen on this particular proposal, and I know Mr Grimley is as well. The update I can give Mr Grimley is that my understanding is that Melbourne City Council are interested in purchasing 310 St Kilda Road, and they have to do their due diligence, and they have not sort of got there yet, about whether they will buy this off the defence force. They have kindly spoken to ANVAM, who you and I both know are a great group that do great work, and I am a huge fan of them and I am a huge fan of the person that probably spearheads their campaign, as in Mark Johnston. I have had a number of conversations with him. With Melbourne City Council—and I cannot pre-empt that; it is a decision for them—if that is the case and ANVAM can move into those particular premises, that is perfect. It is across from the shrine and actually in the precinct. I want to have a conversation with my colleague Danny Pearson about the announcement he made around the arts precinct, and I think this would be a perfect place for it, given that precinct.

I am in discussions with ANVAM, and I have asked some of my advisers and some in the department to talk to ANVAM about what we can do to help. I understand that this property will need some work done on it before they can even move in, if they get the opportunity to move in, so I am having conversations with ANVAM. But something I did not know, Mr Grimley, and I appreciate you telling me in the question, is that the federal government are waiting to see what the state government is going to do about it. That kind of fires me up more to try and do something around it, because if that is the case then let us hook them in as well, because I think there is going to be a need for assistance for ANVAM. As you know, they are a group that volunteer their time and, as I said, do some fantastic work.

The answer to the part of your question around whether I have had conversations with the federal minister is no, but let us see how Melbourne City Council goes and see where it progresses. I am constantly talking to Mark Johnston and other members of ANVAM around this potential and am really keen to see how we can help.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:05): Thank you, Minister, for your honesty and strong advocacy for the mental health of veterans. The more people behind us, the better, I think. I hope that ANVAM can call St Kilda Road home, but in the meantime there are many, many things that we can be doing for veterans who are struggling with their mental health, and this is especially critical at this time, when there are many, many questions concerning the integrity around 3000 veterans and currently serving defence force personnel. I have spoken in this place before about the defence dogs program, which is run out of Bathurst, being used for post-traumatic stress injury affected defence and Victoria Police members with outstanding results. So my supplementary question is: what other more time-sensitive initiatives, such as the defence dogs program, is the state government exploring and considering to support our veterans’ mental health?

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:06): Can I again thank Mr Grimley for his question and his interest. I think there is a lot of potential out there and there are a lot of groups doing some really good things. The defence dogs program, Mr Grimley, you might know more about than me, but I will bring myself to understand it a lot more. My understanding is that it sounds like a great program and—you can correct me on the record when you get another chance—my understanding is that these are rescue dogs who are trained in the corrections system and there is rehabilitation in the corrections system and then they end up becoming assistance dogs to veterans, which is fantastic. I am keen to chase you up on you introducing me to that group and exploring what we can do, because I think it is a fantastic initiative around veterans’ mental health, particularly now, as you do highlight. It is a hard time for veterans. A couple of people have done some very bad things, but there are a lot of veterans, as I said, that have served with courage and dignity, and we need to support them.

Ministers statements: bushfire recovery initiatives

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:07): I would like to update the house by way of acknowledgement of the recovery efforts in our country communities, which have been impacted by coronavirus, but the communities I want to talk about today are those that were impacted by bushfires early in the year. For many of us last summer, I know, feels like an eternity ago. COVID has occupied our attention and distracted many efforts, but no-one should forget that many of our regional communities were hit unbelievably hard by last summer’s bushfires. The start of the year saw repeated days of bushfire threat to small towns and the loss of houses, businesses and livestock, and sadly we lost five lives in the vicinity.

Last week I visited Corryong, an immensely resilient community who are largely self-sufficient and proud of that fact. They are proud of their tight-knit community and proud of where they live. Understandably this year has stretched local resources and local infrastructure. Many people have worked tirelessly to support the response and now the recovery. The task of rebuilding after such a significant event cannot be understated. To be then hit by a once-in-a-generation global pandemic has added complexity to the task of coming together to rebuild. The government is continuing its support for the community to recover from the dual impacts. Government agencies, coordinated through Bushfire Recovery Victoria, continue to work closely with community leaders to support wellbeing and economic recovery. I would particularly like to mention Juliana Phelps and Dominic Sandilands for their exceptional leadership through this period. The government continues to provide extensive support for health, including ongoing support for individual wellbeing, and we recently released a local economic recovery program that will fund local community projects that support economic recovery and resilience.

I was also very fortunate to visit bushfire timber salvage operations, where teams of skilled VicForests contractors are working hard to save badly burnt timber from going to waste. These contractors are providing an important timber supply for local businesses and supporting local economies to bounce back from a difficult year. Like for much of regional Victoria, ongoing recovery will not be easy, but we are committed to supporting these communities that have had to face these challenges. At the start of the year I said these communities would not have to face this alone, and this has not changed. I ask that we continue to think of these impacted communities as they approach the anniversary of the fires.

China trade

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:09): My question is to the Leader of the Government and minister representing the Premier. On 12 November 2019 we asked detailed questions on notice about the Premier’s repeated visits to China, who he met with in China and on what days. He did not satisfactorily answer the question, and the question was reinstated by the President on 4 March 2020. The Premier responded to the reinstated question with precisely the same cut-and-paste from the departmental website as before. So I ask: why is the Premier refusing to answer simple questions about whom he met with in China, on what dates and what their official position was? Is this more forelock tugging in the face of Chinese communists, or do they have something on him?

The PRESIDENT: I do not know if the leader is capable of answering that question, 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) (12:11): Thank you, President. I was going to seek some guidance from about three-quarters of the way into the question because it seems odd to me to use question time to ask a question to raise procedural matters on views of reinstatement of questions and adequacy of answers. However, I am advised that the answer that was furnished had all of the Premier’s engagements in it. Therefore, on behalf of the Premier, he stands by that answer.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:11): The truth of the matter is that it does not answer the questions. It is precisely the same as what was reinstated, and the fact is the Premier has not answered with whom he met, what their position was and on what day. I will ask a very simple question, then, Minister: why the cover-up?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:12): I can pretty much only respond to that by reiterating what my answer was to the substantive question. The answer furnished had all the Premier’s engagements, and if it was not formatted to Mr Davis’s satisfaction, that is a matter for him.

Timber industry

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:12): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. The Gippsland Times has reported this government’s decision to destroy Victoria’s sustainable hardwood timber industry and the regional communities that depend upon it. Timber worker Shane Phillips said that, if the timber industry disappears in Heyfield, the whole community goes next. I quote:

This has been going on since way back when I started in the industry, back in 1983 … and it’s just been going worse and worse and worse, and now we’re down on our knees.

…

… how are our kids going to have money to earn a living and buy their houses and do what we’ve done?

We’ve all moved through our lives to this stage, but our kids have got nothing.

We stand with workers like Shane. Shane also said:

It’s not a Hollywood movie where the good guy always wins—we’re losing and we’re losing big time.

Minister, why is your government fighting a war against sustainable hardwood timber workers like Shane Phillips?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:13): Mr Quilty, this is not an attack on Mr Phillips or indeed anybody in the industry. What this is is a decision that the government had to take. This was not an easy decision, but when you look at the supply of timber and the sustainability of this industry—

Members interjecting.

Ms SYMES: It would be very easy to do nothing. Of course it would be. It would make my job a hell of a lot easier if we were not engaged in necessary policy.

Ms Bath interjected.

Ms SYMES: I think Mr Quilty would like to hear my answer.

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: The question was directed to the Leader of the Government, Minister Symes.

Ms SYMES: That is why we are delivering the Victorian Forestry Plan. It is about positioning the timber industry as a leader and innovator in the sector as it transitions away from native timber to plantation timber. This does not mean that there might not be some native timber harvesting, as I witnessed in Corryong last week. After the effects of fires it is really important to make sure that we do salvage and there will be firebreaks and the like, so it is not as simple as just replacing one with the other. The decision was made because supply from native timber has been in ongoing decline over recent decades, and simply continuing to argue that native timber harvesting is viable in Victoria is frankly irresponsible. While it might be viable for the length of our political careers, I am certainly interested in the long game. That is why, rather than doing nothing, we are providing the investment and time needed to support communities and businesses to undertake the steady changes they need to move to a more secure and strong future. I would maintain that that is the responsible thing to do. It is not the easiest thing to do.

We are leading and supporting regional Victorians to secure their future. We do not want to bury our heads in the sand. We cannot look backwards and just decide that we want to hope for the best. Victoria has the largest plantation estate in Australia, and five out of six trees harvested in Victoria are already from plantations, but we know there is a lot more that we can do. That is why we have got the Gippsland plantations investment program, which will grow Victoria’s timber stocks by providing incentives for new industrial-scale plantings, and that is $110 million connected to that plantation development.

We are also working with communities on diversification. Communities will be able to develop some economic plans, looking at their strengths. And in relation to mills we are working with mills that can access business support to look at transitioning to new innovations and stuff. And you would be very familiar, Mr Quilty, with XLam in Wodonga. That is very much the type of industry that can grow with the growth of the plantation industry, and Gippsland can certainly benefit from a similar facility to what we have got in Wodonga.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:16): I move:

That the minister’s response be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:16): I thank the minister for her response. The same report revealed that the government hid information about the decision to ban Victorian hardwood timber. Three freedom-of-information requests were made to the government requesting an explanation of the scientific basis for the ban: one to the Premier, one to Premier and Cabinet and one to the Minister for Agriculture. All three of these requests were denied, with the government claiming that the information was confidential. I cannot possibly see why. In democracy, policy decisions are made on behalf of the people, so information for their basis must also be publicly available. Michael O’Connor, the CFMEU forestry national secretary, said:

It dawned on me then that somehow regional people were being treated like second class citizens in their own country.

He went on:

If that happened in Melbourne, it never would have been accepted.

Minister, why are you hiding the scientific basis for your decision to shut down the timber industry in regional Victoria?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:17): I would point out to Mr Quilty that question time is not an opportunity to reprosecute an FOI decision.

Ministers statements: business support

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:18): I would like to take this opportunity to update the house on how our government is supporting small businesses, microbusinesses and sole traders across Victoria with grants recently provided to local business chambers and trader groups. One hundred and eighty-two groups have received a total of $4.15 million in $10 000, $20 000 or $50 000 allocations through the Grants for Business Chambers and Trader Groups program to support local businesses. These organisations provide critical leadership to their communities and bring businesses together, empowering them with advice, connections, peer support and resources. They offer businesses the opportunity to jointly market to their local community and pool resources to reduce individual costs. They work together on local issues that have common impact on their businesses.

The grants through this program will support projects including supporting and encouraging local business collaboration activities that help members adapt their businesses to the new COVID operating environment; ‘buy local’ campaigns to drive visitation to a particular spot; and undertaking locally focused activities for COVID-19 resilience, restart and recovery.

I am delighted to provide the house with just a few examples of how organisations are using the grants. The Mordialloc Traders Association will be encouraging their community to shop and eat locally, boosting small businesses in their vibrant shopping centre. The Greater Dandenong Chamber of Commerce will launch a COVID recovery program aimed at its multicultural and diverse business community to assist with reopening and boost local activity. And Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine will launch a major redevelopment of their website, enabling more effective communication, support and insights to be delivered to tourism operators. Congratulations to successful applicants, and thanks also to Mainstreet Victoria for their assistance and support in the design and delivery of this initiative.

Melbourne medically supervised injecting facility

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:20): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, on Friday Jenny Pyke, chair of the Queen Victoria Market traders, told 3AW radio that there is a growing sense of disbelief to put it at the site they have chosen. I am referring to a comment she made on a radio program. She was referring to the second injecting room, which Minister Foley confirmed was the only site considered by government at public accounts and estimates on Friday. What discussions have you therefore had with the traders and small business owners at Queen Victoria Market about the proposed site for a second injecting room facility?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:20): I thank Ms Crozier for her question about the proposed second site for a safe injecting centre for Melbourne. I would remind Ms Crozier that Martin Foley, Minister for Health, is the responsible minister for this initiative. Through his work, his department is engaging with stakeholders and community as appropriate. In terms of the Vic market traders and any representations they have made to me or any requests to discuss this with me, to the best of my knowledge there have been none to date.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:21): Thank you for that response, Minister. Minister, I am aware that Minister Foley is responsible, but you are the small business minister; that is why I referred this to you. You have just said that there has been no representation made to you, but what advice have you received as to the impact on business for a second injecting facility that will be located at the iconic Queen Victoria Market?

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:21): I thank Ms Crozier for her further question. As the minister that is not responsible for any decision around the safe injecting centre, I would—

Ms Crozier interjected.

Ms PULFORD: Yes, and there are 625 000 small businesses in Victoria, and I have not yet in five months been able to speak to each and every one of them. All that have sought to meet with me—all representative groups and traders groups—I have happily met with, and I have been very pleased to get to know those who have sought a meeting with me. If Ms Crozier has information to hand that someone she heard on the radio would like to meet with me, then of course I would be happy to meet with her.

Veterans housing

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:22): My question is to the Minister for Housing in the other place. Will any of the $5.3 billion allocated in the budget for constructing 12 000 new homes be allocated for housing for veterans, especially in the west? The government has stated that the investment will deliver 9300 new social housing homes, including replacing the 1100 old public housing units, to help Aboriginal Victorians, pensioners, Victorians with disability, family violence victims and single parents find their feet. They have also said that 2000 of these homes will be for Victorians living with mental illness. A further 2900 new affordable and low-cost homes will be built to help low- to moderate-income earners, yet there is no mention of any allocation for veterans.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:23): Thank you, Dr Cumming, for your question and your interest in this matter. I know that the Minister for Housing has been working very closely with a number of portfolio ministers on these issues, and I would be very happy to refer your question to him and get a written answer in accordance with the standing orders.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:24): I thank the minister for her response. Will the minister work with the Victorian Veterans Council to determine the needs of veterans with regard to housing? Uptake has been high with the five, only, units in Richmond for veterans experiencing housing instability. There have been many success stories for veterans living in the complex and finding employment, returning to study or finding long-term secure housing. An evaluation found that the project model works well, assisting veterans with complex needs and wraparound support. However, services are sadly lacking in the north and the west. The Victorian Veterans Council is to undertake a new veterans sector study in 2021 to identify and to address the gaps in services required by the veterans community, including housing and homelessness services.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:25): I will refer your supplementary question, Dr Cumming, to the Minister for Housing. I think the Minister for Veterans is looking like he is very interested in this as well.

Ministers statements: suburban development

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:25): For some reason today, compared to yesterday, I feel about 2 feet taller, President, so thank you for the call.

I would like to update the house on Victoria’s budget outcome for the suburban development portfolio. I am pleased that we will invest $20 million to support suburban revitalisation and growth initiatives. This will provide a boost for suburban activity centres across the metropolitan area: $4.4 million to improve the seawall and beach access at Altona beach, and $3.6 million to support the ongoing work of the revitalisation boards at Frankston and Broadmeadows. Also, which I am very happy about, there will be $12 million to establish over the next couple of years new revitalisation boards in Boronia, Tarneit, Noble Park, Melton, Lilydale and Reservoir. This obviously builds on the building works stimulus package of $3 million announced in May 2020.

I will say I was very pleased last week to visit the great suburb of Boronia, where my colleague the member for Bayswater, Jackson Taylor, will be leading a new revitalisation board in this program. Works have already kicked off at streetscape improvements and art and public lighting in Lupton Way, supported by the quarter of a million dollars allocation for the building works of this important project. These new boards, including the one at Boronia, will guide and support investment, infrastructure upgrades and public space improvements, place activities and business stimulation and community activities, and we will have a number of people from the community and from the council on the boards. Can I say what an impressive individual Jackson Taylor, the member for Bayswater, is. He talks good, he looks good and he is good.

Agriculture workforce

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:27): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. In your response to a question yesterday you said the 1 December recommencement date for seasonal workers was a falsity. Minister, the acting chief executive of Agriculture Victoria appeared at a rural press club luncheon webinar and said 1 December was the target the Andrews government was working towards. You have tiptoed around this issue since March. Why have you missed your own deadline?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:28): I think you actually answered the question in your question. Of course we have had a target for December. We are continuing to work on quarantine options for the Pacific Islander scheme, and it is slower than I would like. I will admit that. But that does not mean that our efforts are in any way diminished, and I am hoping for advice from the Northern Territory government this week.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:28): I thank the minister for her response. Minister, the Weekly Times reported on 2 December that, and I quote:

… Agriculture Victoria’s acting chief executive Matt Lowe said the Victorian Government was working towards a December recommencement of the employment scheme to ensure farmers whose harvests peaked in the weeks before Christmas would have adequate labour to pick their fruit.

Minister, your department is providing false hope to this industry while you continue to navel gaze and follow poor leadership on this issue. Why have you lost sight of your department and still have no viable solutions for this important industry?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:29): Matt Lowe was appointed acting CEO of Agriculture Victoria in about April. I met him in person for the first time two weeks ago, but I reckon I have spoken to him every day during this. We have had phone calls at 3 o’clock in the morning dealing with the issues of the pandemic, whether it be abattoir closures or seasonal worker issues. This is something that we are committed to. We are not navel-gazing. We deal with this issue every single day. It is a very complex issue. It is not as simple as just saying, ‘Do more’. It involves the federal government; it involves other states. Other states are having just as many challenges. If you spoke to your colleagues in other states, you would know, but frankly they do not even know your names down here, the Nats I have been talking to. What I would say is that the New South Wales National Party and I are on the same page, working towards making sure that we are getting seasonal workers, whether they are locally sourced or internationally sourced, for our hardworking farmers, and those efforts will continue.

Timber industry

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:30): My question today is for the Minister for Agriculture. In May 2020 Victoria’s conservation regulator prepared a report stating that continuing timber harvesting in light of the 2019–20 fires risked serious and irreversible damage to the state’s biodiversity. Now, almost 12 months since the fires, the Victorian government has only just announced a major events review to understand the full impacts for our threatened species, a process that will take some time. Yet the recent state budget provides new funding to log in burnt forests. Why won’t the minister direct that VicForests cease all native forest logging in Victoria, at least until the major events review is undertaken, to be certain that logging sanctioned by this government will not cause irreversible destruction of our threatened plants and animals and their habitat?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:31): It is almost a polar opposite question to the one I got previously. We do work in collaboration with the Office of the Conservation Regulator. When I say ‘we’, it is VicForests through the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and OCR through the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. They work together in relation to managing forests and identifying appropriate areas to log. We are all involved in the timber release plan and identification of coupes, for example. When there is a major incident such as a fire, it is certainly the responsibility of the OCR to assess the damage and work with the departments in order to determine where it is appropriate to log and where it is not.

For the East Gippsland fire, for example, there is no logging currently within the burnt footprint if the timber has not been burnt. So there is salvage timber logging going on, but there is no logging of unburnt timber even if it was allocated to a coupe, for example. These are delicate considerations. We work together, we try and get the best outcome of making sure that we are doing timber logging in a safe way whilst also not having any negative impacts on the footprint that has not been damaged to ensure that appropriate habitat and protections are also front of mind. Does that answer your question? I hope so.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:33): Thank you, Minister. I note that there is quite considerable evidence and extensive research, including from leading global forest ecologist Professor David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University, that demonstrates that logging in burnt forests is the worst kind of logging. It destroys the last remaining habitat in logs and remaining trees, kills animals, reptiles and birds struggling to hold on, damages creeks and soil, and brings in weeds, pests and animals. How can your government justify the environmental devastating practice of post-fire logging?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:33): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. It is certainly not my intention to discredit any scientific experts such as Dr Lindenmayer, but what I have learned in this field is that you can always find an expert that is going to argue with another expert. There are competing views about the validity of salvage logging, for example. We are very confident in the value of salvage logging. I saw it firsthand. It was actually pretty emotive driving up the hills—you would know the mountains; I cannot remember the name of the mountains—up past Corryong. You see on a map how much a forest is burnt. When you drive through it, it is pretty confronting, but you talk to those loggers about how they go about selecting trees and maintaining future regeneration practices and things. There are lots of things that go into making these decisions. It is not as simple as saying ‘Don’t salvage’ or ‘Salvage’. It is a matter of talking to the experts the OCR goes through and making sure the forests can come back bigger and stronger than ever whilst also salvaging appropriate timber that would otherwise go to waste.

Ministers statements: occupational health and safety

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:34): I rise to update the house on WorkSafe’s important message to workers and employers in the lead-up to the holiday season. This important safety message reminds everyone that they need to prioritise their health and safety so that we can all get to the end of the year safely.

For many workplaces, including shops, warehouses and factories, there is an influx of activity and work to meet an increased demand as we head towards the holiday season. Employers and workers must not cut corners in the rush to reach the end of the year. We all need to get there safely. It has never been more important for employers to ensure that they are meeting their critical occupational health and safety obligations. It is essential that employers ensure staff training is up to date, their supervision is adequate and their workplaces are free from risks and hazards.

Finally, I want to take a moment to thank those that are working in our retail sector right now. The festive season can often, sadly, coincide with an increase in abuse and harassment at work from customers, and occupational violence is never okay. To everyone who might be heading out to our shopping centres to pick up gifts, it has never been more important to respect and support those who have supported us. Together we can get through the final weeks of 2020 safely.

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:36): Regarding questions today, Mr O’Donohue’s first question to Minister Symes, two days, only the question; and Dr Cumming, on housing to Minister Stitt, two days, question and supplementary.

Questions on notice

Answers

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:36): President, I wish to draw your attention to questions 2597, 2598, 2599 and 2638, which were placed on the notice paper on 4 August 2020. Questions 2597 and 2598 were for the Minister for Regional Development, and questions 2599 and 2638 were for the Minister for Health. I contacted the ministers’ offices yesterday, as well as previously, but no responses have been forthcoming.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:37): Mr Quilty, I did see that email. Although the email sent to me was addressed to the Minister for Health, the numbers correlated with questions for the regional development portfolio. I have seen the answers, so they are working their way through the system.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:37): On a similar point, I have sent a letter to Minister Symes. I think she has acknowledged that; thank you very much, Minister. But I also sent a letter to Minister Tierney in her capacity representing the Minister for Corrections regarding question on notice 2832, and I have not had a response. I am just wondering if the minister could follow up on my behalf, please.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:38): My office is following that up.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:38): Also on the issue of questions on notice, I have unanswered questions to the Minister for Water, who I have written to and I think is represented by Minister Tierney here—questions 3066 through to 3076, which were listed on 27 October. I have written to the Minister for Water, and I wonder if Minister Tierney can provide an update.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:38): Again, my office is following that up.

Constituency questions

Northern Victoria Region

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:38): My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The Bendigo stadium is a world-class sport and entertainment facility that welcomes a staggering 12 000 visitors each week. The stadium underwent a major redevelopment four years ago, and to complete the redevelopment in its entirety the City of Greater Bendigo is advocating for funding to install a 400-kilowatt solar photovoltaic and storage battery system at the stadium. This will enable onsite electricity generation that will significantly reduce energy costs and substantially reduce the stadium’s carbon footprint. The installation of the solar PV and battery has been costed at $1.135 million, with the City of Greater Bendigo contributing $300 000 to this figure. Will the minister assist the City of Greater Bendigo to reduce their carbon emissions by providing funding of $835 000 to install a 400-kilowatt solar PV and battery storage system at the Bendigo stadium?

Western Metropolitan Region

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:39): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes, the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio. The Andrews Labor government has announced an investment of $797 million to help Victorians cover the cost of their power bills and make homes more energy efficient. My question to the minister is: can the minister provide me an update on the time line of the rollout of this project? This investment includes $335 million to replace old wood, electric or gas-fired heaters with new energy-efficient systems for low-income earners and a further $112 million to seal windows and doors and upgrade heating, cooling and hot water in 35 000 social housing properties. The program will also help set Victoria up for the move to 7-star efficiency standards for new homes and a one-off $250 payment for those facing hardship.

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:40): My constituency question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister attend the next Brimbank small business task force meeting to hear firsthand what further support the community needs to rebuild? The Business Support Fund and the tax deferrals are welcome, but this only skims the surface. The small business sector in my community urgently needs more to rebuild, especially as one of the most heavily impacted due to the lockdowns, restrictions and outbreaks. Sectors heavily affected include manufacturing, health, fitness, retail, food and beverage, freight, transport and logistics. Melbourne’s airport employs 20 000 people, many living in Western Metro Region. The impact has also reduced household spending across local businesses, and this must be acknowledged.

Western Victoria Region

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:42): My constituency question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place. A few months ago I asked a question about the speed limit on an 8-kilometre stretch of the Great Ocean Road in Marengo. This particular section of road is a slaughterhouse for native wildlife. With high tourist activity in and out of the town, kangaroos, wallabies, echidnas, koalas and other natives are regularly hit and killed. I have asked the government to reduce the speed limit on this stretch of road. While I have received positive signalling, this has not yet been actioned. We are coming into summer, meaning traffic on the road will only increase. This will be heightened by the government’s vouchers to holiday in regional Victoria. Marengo residents want to know if the minister will action this speed reduction before the year is over and in doing so save countless lives.

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:42): My constituency question is for the Premier. A constituent wrote to me this week who owns a cafe inside a shopping centre in the Bellarine Peninsula. If you walk down the main street, go across the street to any shop or to a cafe down the road, no mask is required, but at this cafe a mask is required, because it is inside a shopping centre, even if nobody else is around at 5.30 am. My constituent has already received negative feedback from customers about the mask requirement of his cafe. Small disadvantages such as this can significantly impact small businesses, unbeknown to this government that is deprived of any private sector experience. My question to the Premier is: when will the face mask mandate be removed entirely?

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:43): I want to take this opportunity to thank my staff, parliamentary officers and staff and also all my parliamentary colleagues and wish them a happy break and a happy Christmas.

My question is to the Minister for Planning. As the minister is aware, nearly 5000 residents have signed a petition calling for the protection from demolition of a 1949 home at 12–14 Tannock Street in Balwyn. The home was the final project that Robin Boyd was personally involved in before his death and remains intact after two sympathetic extensions he designed for the owners in 1959 and 1971. I understand the minister has so far declined to intervene to grant this building heritage protection status. Is it correct that the reported reason for this is the minister believes that the building is not under imminent threat of demolition? And in what circumstances would the minister, to whom I also wish a happy Christmas, consider the issuing of an interim heritage order for this building?

Eastern Metropolitan Region

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:45): My constituency question today is for the Minister for Public Transport. I have received representations from numerous locals in Mont Albert North regarding a certain bus stop. The stop on Belmore Road, which is just east of Boondara Road, is a busy stop for locals heading to the East Balwyn shops. The stop is currently not more than a concrete slab, and it could benefit from an upgrade. I am concerned at this time, when there remains much unease in the community about the use of public transport, that we as a Parliament—and certainly the government—should be doing everything we can do to reasonably and safely encourage people to get back on buses, back on trams and back on trains before our roads return not only to what they were before but indeed even to a worse state in terms of congestion. Therefore my question to the minister is: will you seek to upgrade this bus stop to include a bus shelter?

Northern Victoria Region

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:45): My constituency question is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The Beechworth CFA have put forward repeated business cases requesting ultralight tankers and equipment to fight fires in the Beechworth gorge. This is not a scribble on a napkin; it is a highly persuasive document compiled by professionals who know the fire risk Beechworth is exposed to. These have been rejected by CFA management without any feedback indicating why. The minister is aware that the Beechworth CFA lacks the appropriate resources to defend the town from fire. My colleague Tania Maxwell raised this matter in June. I am raising it again. The government appears content to rely on aerial fire bombers in the gorge. I can tell you now: on a bad day this will not work. The steeper the incline, the faster fire moves—the town will be nothing more than ashes by the time help arrives. CFA captain Bruce Forrest said, ‘On reflection, we are no better prepared with the resources in Beechworth than we were 10 years ago’. The people of Beechworth want to know when they will get appropriate ultralight tanker vehicles and other equipment to fight fires and defend the town.

Southern Metropolitan Region

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:47): My constituency question today is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure and relates to the level crossing removal at Union Road and the one being done together with it at Mont Albert Road, the removal of the Surrey Hills station in my electorate—or next to my electorate right there, drawing from people in my area—and the Mont Albert station. In truth what the government is doing is coalescing two stations into one. The minister’s documents claim that it is 400 metres that the new station will be built from Mont Albert, but in fact the information I have and that of local residents, including people corresponding with me as recently as today, indicates that it is more likely to be 600 metres from the current Mont Albert station to where the new station is. So my question is: will the minister release the full and detailed plans and all of the community consultation that has been undertaken?

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:48): My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. I am naturally aware of recent exchanges between Minister Neville and Ms Lovell on the condition of the Kinglake West fire station and the brigade’s main tanker. Unfortunately there is also a serious problem and a stalemate with their siren. Several years ago Kinglake West was among a selected group of stations to have installed by Emergency Management Victoria what they believed would be a dual fire and community alerting siren. However, it was installed without the equipment necessary for the fire siren to work. Local volunteers have subsequently been told by EMV and the CFA to pay for this themselves—frankly, with money they simply do not have. I therefore ask the minister if she would be able to take or to direct action that will lead to the urgent resolution of this longstanding impasse.

Motions

E-cigarettes

Debate resumed.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:49): I shall continue. I was talking about Ms Yvette Hopkins. Ms Yvette Hopkins, aged 45, is an administration assistant in the health sector. She started smoking at the age of 15. She and her husband tried all the standard ways of quitting, including various nicotine replacement therapies, but were not successful. After seeing her mother switch to vaping and then reduce the nicotine and quit entirely, and watching her sister switch to vaping, she gave it a try. After vaping exclusively for two and a half years, she no longer has a wheeze or a cough and has not had a cold since she began and has improved oral health.

Grant Clark, aged 52, started smoking at the age of 14. He tried all the standard ways of quitting, including Champix, which left him depressed and suicidal. Vaping has changed his life. He is no longer suffering shortness of breath. His submission ends with a short statement in all capital letters: ‘VAPING SAVES LIVES’. In this place I have heard colleagues from across the political spectrum compassionately consider the stories of various communities. It is time that we listen to the hundreds of thousands of Australians who vape and act accordingly.

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:50): I rise to speak on Mr Limbrick’s motion on vaping. Each year smoking takes 4400 Victorian lives. Those are too many lives lost. Along with the social and emotional impacts, it also creates economic impact. It costs about $3.7 billion in tangible costs, including over $600 million in healthcare costs. There has been considerable progress in recent times—smoking has become less acceptable socially, for the good. However, smoking remains the leading risk factor for chronic diseases, including cancer, heart and lung disease and stroke.

The government wants to reduce the impact of smoking on the community. We want to protect the health and wellbeing of all Victorians. The smoking rate among adults in Victoria has been steadily declining, which is good news. There are similar trends across the country. According to Cancer Council Victoria, in 2013, 13.5 per cent of the Victorian population were daily smokers. This has decreased to 10.6 per cent in 2019. Overall smoking rates among Victorian teenagers are also reducing. This shows that our efforts to help people and to stop teenagers taking up smoking are working, and they are working right across Victoria.

The Andrews Labor government has been taking many progressive stances. We are never afraid to lead the nation, and even the world in some instances, when it comes to good policy. It is the health of our children that we have to think about. That is why we have the current policy on e-cigarettes. Big tobacco companies could be promoting e-cigarettes to get people addicted to nicotine. Big tobacco companies know that old-school cigarettes are not being taken up by young people, so they are trying to come up with newer things like vaping and e-cigarettes. Once people are addicted to nicotine they could end up smoking cigarettes.

E-cigarettes are very new products. They are not risk free or safe. We do not know what their long-term impact is. People who use e-cigarettes or people who vape tend to be younger people. Vaping devices and e-cigarettes are marketed in dodgy ways to younger people through social media. The debate regarding the public harms and perceived benefits of e-cigarettes is still ongoing. The long-term safety and health effects associated with e-cigarette use and exposure to second-hand vapour are unknown. There is inconclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid as well. We do not know if it is a good way for people to stop smoking. There is not enough data. There are no definitive answers yet. The science is furiously contested.

The biggest players in the vaping business are the major tobacco companies. They realise the potential, and they are more than happy to take advantage of younger people. Big tobacco companies have always used deceitful and insidious marketing techniques. They use sneaky tactics to target and sell their products. Our government does not want to renormalise smoking behaviours and nicotine addiction for the next generation. The Victorian drugs, poisons and controlled substances laws, together with commonwealth legislation, effectively prohibit the sale of liquid nicotine in and for use in e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

This is because nicotine is listed as a dangerous poison in the poisons standard. These laws mean that adults in Victoria can buy and use e-cigarettes that do not contain nicotine. Based on current evidence and expert advice the government has taken a safety-first approach in line with other jurisdictions. The advertising, sale and use of e-cigarette devices is now regulated in the same manner as tobacco products to minimise potential harms.

Since 1 August 2017 the Andrews Labor government’s amendments to the Tobacco Act 1987 banning smoking in outdoor dining areas has been in place. This ban covers all outdoor dining areas at restaurants, cafes, takeaway shops and licensed premises. Outdoor dining areas typically include eating areas on footpaths, balconies and in courtyards as well as at food fairs and outdoor events where food is sold. These laws were the logical next step in the introduction of smoke-free areas in Victoria. They balance the need for public health reform and consistency between states, while providing flexibility to businesses as to how they use their outdoor areas.

While Victoria has a broad range of smoke-free areas, we are actively seeking to reduce smoking by investing in programs to support Victorians to quit smoking. Currently the Victorian government invests around $9 million annually in a comprehensive range of tobacco control measures, which include anti-smoking campaigns integrated across television, radio, print and social media; the operation of Quitline, a telephone-based smoking cessation support service; population surveys of smoking prevalence and behaviours; and programs to address smoking in high-prevalence populations, embedding smoking cessation support into routine care within public hospitals. The reduction in smokers in Victoria is very good news, and it has been a very intensive campaign.

The cigarette market around the world is increasing despite advances and reforms. A few decades ago there were studies that showed that smoking was safe, but when the truth was exposed, governments globally had to take swift action. We want to take the safety-first approach. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, TGA, Australia’s medicine and poison regulator, is responsible for approving therapeutic products like smoking cessation aids. Approved products are included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. The TGA has approved nicotine-replacement therapy, NRT, products such as patches, gum and lozenges as smoking cessation aids. This means that NRT products have been assessed for efficacy and safety and are included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. The TGA has not approved any e-cigarette or e-liquid containing nicotine as a therapeutic product smoking cessation aid to help smokers quit. The Victorian government has funded Quit Victoria to provide expert advice and support to anyone wanting to quit smoking. Anyone wishing to quit smoking can call Quitline to access personalised counselling.

The latest research shows that counselling in combination with quitting medication can maximise the chance of successfully quitting. This approach strikes the right balance between the perceived potential benefits of e-cigarette use for current smokers as a cessation aid against the potential risks for the whole community, particularly young people. Too many Victorians still die from smoking, but we want to continue—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have to interrupt the house for a lunchbreak.

Sitting suspended 12.59 pm until 2.05 pm.

Ms VAGHELA: I will continue my contribution on Mr Limbrick’s motion on vaping. Too many Victorians still die from smoking, but we want to continue reducing the normalisation of smoking for all Victorians. The current laws reduce the exposure, particularly of children and young people, to e-cigarette marketing and the potential harms from e-cigarette use and risk of poisoning. While publicly stating that e-cigarettes are only for adults wishing to quit smoking, the e-cigarette industry continues to develop and sell products with novelty features and sweet confectionery flavours that make them particularly attractive and palatable to young people willing to experiment. The growing uptake in e-cigarette use, including alarming evidence of increasing use by young people and people who have never been smokers, only reinforces the need for e-cigarette products containing nicotine to be tightly controlled.

The 2019 national drug strategy household survey showed that nearly two in three current smokers and one in five non-smokers aged 18 to 24 reported having tried e-cigarettes. The results of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2019 national drug strategy household survey, which Mr Limbrick refers to in his motion, show that the percentage of Victorians who are daily smokers almost halved between 2001 and 2019, from 19.2 per cent to 10.2 per cent. This reflects the success of Victoria’s robust anti-smoking laws and commitment to reducing the widespread harm caused by tobacco. However, the fact remains that nicotine is a highly addictive and dangerous substance and needs to be tightly regulated. I would like to conclude my contribution.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:07): I am very pleased to be able to rise and speak to Mr Limbrick’s motion this afternoon. I do want to commend him for bringing this motion to the house, because I think it is a really very important debate to have. There are elements in Mr Limbrick’s motion that refer to some very interesting evidence that has been provided. I will not go through all of them, but Mr Limbrick does reference the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare speaking about how smoking was responsible for 9.3 per cent of the total burden of disease in 2015—which was the last time that data was undertaken, collated and analysed—contributing to more than one in every eight deaths. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s national drug strategy household survey in 2019 showed that 2.5 per cent of the population aged 14 years and over are now using e-cigarettes, and I want to come back to that point in my contribution. The report shows that vaping is primarily used as a quitting tool by smokers, with 44 per cent using it to quit. Mr Limbrick goes on to talk about other percentages on smoking: 32 per cent to cut down, 23 per cent to avoid relapse and 27 per cent to reduce harm from smoking.

The motion references the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Physicians, which says that nicotine vaping is at least 95 per cent safer than smoking. I think that is an interesting reference, because that jurisdiction, the UK, is like Canada and New Zealand and various other jurisdictions that have probably a more liberal approach to vaping than what we are experiencing here in Australia, and I think that goes to the heart of some of the points that Mr Limbrick made in his contribution. And again, he speaks about the regulation needing to strike the right balance between providing access for addicted smokers and enforcing a minimum age of sale and strict penalties to discourage uptake by youth. That I think is very important in terms of what we need to do to protect young people from the harms of smoking and vaping, and I want to speak to that in some detail as well.

The final part of the motion calls on the government to support tobacco harm reduction by nicotine vaping as a safer alternative for smokers who are unable to quit through other methods and to legalise nicotine liquid for vaping as a consumer product with appropriate and risk-proportionate regulations.

Now, as I said, I think it is a very good motion to come to the house that we are debating, and I would like to make some points in reference to some of those issues that I have spoken about. Because the federal government has been watching this space very closely, and for obvious reasons. They too are very concerned about the numbers of young people smoking and the harm of smoking, but also what they are doing is in terms of looking at the e-cigarettes containing those vaporising nicotine components. There have been some issues overseas, and I know that in the United States there have been concerns about THC and other components that are very deadly, causing significant lung disease—black lung, as it is known colloquially. It caused a number of deaths a few years ago. There was a real take-up and a spike. It is my understanding that those numbers subsided after a campaign was done on the harms of these toxic substances in e-cigarettes and using the vaping mechanisms. And that again, I think, is one of the reasons why the federal government is taking a precautionary approach and, I suspect, why the state government is as well—because of those unknown issues around some of those harmful and toxic components that can be put into these vaping instruments.

Now, as I said, the federal government has made a number of notes on this. They have actually prohibited the commercial supply of e-cigarettes and e-cigarette liquid, and it is my understanding they are undertaking a review into that through the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). They are looking at the schedule of the product. They are concerned about what is coming in and the uptake by young people. That is their main concern. If you look at what the federal minister said in his statement earlier this year, in June in fact of this year, he is relying on that advice that he is getting in terms of the nicotine-based e-cigarettes that are being imported. They are imported based on the need of somebody who is trying to quit smoking, which is prescribed by a doctor and which is allowed, and those have certain time frames in place which are entirely appropriate.

There are other forms of trying to quit—using nicotine patches or gum or inhalers. There are other forms, rather than just smoking, which we know causes the damage and as I have already said causes far too many deaths. Especially the long-term effects of smoking for somebody who commences smoking at a young age are very, very substantial and can lead to some very poor health outcomes. So anything we can do to stop young people from taking up smoking or inhaling some of these toxic substances I think should be encouraged, and I would urge everybody to caution young people in that uptake.

But as I said, the federal government is taking advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, and they have been warning about the dangers of e-cigarettes—largely they are seeing that data that is coming in from overseas. There is no doubt that even though the smoking rates have declined over the past few decades, there are still a number of health-related issues around that. I take Mr Limbrick’s point in terms of trying to reduce the number of people smoking. He referenced a number of people that had made submissions to the Senate inquiry in relation to that. He referenced people who said that vaping has assisted them in their ability to stop smoking. I certainly know of people that vape and they have had the same experience, so I am certainly very aware of some of the benefits for some people that vaping actually does provide. And I think there does need to be more work done on this in relation to understanding exactly the benefits—that evidence, that data, that is coming in—and what the federal government are doing in terms of what the TGA is doing, looking at the scheduling on how this can be then regulated with a better mechanism.

I am almost thinking that Mr Limbrick’s motion might be slightly premature because of what is happening at the federal level with the TGA. I will be interested to see those findings about the scheduling and what they find in terms of allowing adults and others that want to take up vaping to assist with their smoking and allowing that to occur. But we cannot disregard the concerns of the AMA and others who have got real concerns about the quality of the imported nicotine solutions. I am referencing a media release from the AMA from earlier this year where they say they welcome the move to strengthen the response to the importation of nicotine liquids for use in e-cigarettes and that they are concerned about the quality of imported nicotine solutions—some have been found to contain higher levels of nicotine than advertised as well as other adulterants that may pose a risk to users’ health. That is their concern, and they are also referencing those points that I made about the US.

Given those concerns around the experiences in the US, it is certainly a concern for young people, because in the US there was a huge uptake by young people of vaping some years ago. That has somewhat declined, but I think we do need to be protecting young people. That is part of the concern and why the federal government is taking this very cautious approach. It is one that I also think is absolutely prudent, and I think it is a sensible way to go.

I note that the state government has outlined the regulation of nicotine use, and similarly I understand that the poisons code lists nicotine for human use when it is a schedule 7 poison. That is the whole point of what the TGA is looking at and, if it is to be brought into the country, how it can be regulated appropriately, how it can be used and how it cannot be then abused by children and others that may find vaping to be somewhat popular. I also note that sadly there have been instances of deaths of toddlers that have consumed nicotine liquid unintentionally; a tragic, tragic accident happened a few years ago in Victoria. It was just one of those tragic accidents, but I think again it just proves how very lethal and deadly these poisons are, and that is why they are schedule 7 and registered in relation to that by our health authorities. I do think that needs to be understood and it needs to be referenced in the context of this debate.

If I could also say that in Mr Limbrick’s motion he does reference this report, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019, by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. When I was looking through this they make the point that more people are using electronic e-cigarettes—there is no doubt about that—but it is younger adults that are most likely to be attracted to these products. Nearly two-thirds of current smokers and one in five non-smokers between the ages of 18 and 24 reported having tried e-cigarettes. There is no doubt about the frequency of use and what is happening with the popularity of e-cigarettes. I just do think there needs to be some more caution in relation to how e-cigarettes, nicotine-based products and others that are being used will be brought into the country and used. That regulation, as I said, needs to be absolutely considered in its entirety so that we do have the right mechanisms in place to ensure we do not see those adverse outcomes that I have spoken about or the risks to young people and others from the ability for other drugs like cannabis or other formulations to be put into these products to be used and abused by young people. That also leads to some very severe health outcomes.

I will not say much more than that, but I again want to say that I think this is an excellent debate to be having. I think there is more debate to be had on these particular products. They are in the community. They are being recommended by doctors and others. We need to be looking at those health experts from the federal government in relation to the regulation of bringing nicotine products into the country and how that can be done safely. We also need to have an education campaign about the dangers to young people of these particular products.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:20): I concur that it is healthy to have debates on these kinds of issues, particularly when I think there is a sense of unity in terms of tackling nicotine addiction and the impacts of addictive products on people. Certainly our government has a strong commitment to tackling tobacco and the issue of smoking and the impact it has on the health and wellbeing of Victorians. That goes without saying. I will not go over certain aspects that have been covered by Ms Vaghela, but I will refer to the same report that Ms Crozier referred to. The results of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2019 national drug strategy household survey, which Mr Limbrick himself referred to, showed that the percentage of Victorians who are daily smokers almost halved between 2001 and 2019, from 19.2 per cent to 10.2 per cent, and that reflects the success of our robust anti-smoking laws and commitment to reducing the widespread harm caused by tobacco.

That is not an end point of course. There are still too many people who are addicted, and I understand again the goal here is to see, ‘Well, how can we further drive down rates of addiction and the take-up of this?’.

Mr Limbrick interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: Well, that may be so, and I will pursue some of the issues that are discussed here, but that is the whole point of having a debate, isn’t it, so that we can explore these very important issues. We know that nicotine is highly addictive. I have not actually had a smoke myself, but I do know—I am aware—that it is highly addictive.

Talking about the issue of evidence, I think that is really, really critical in this space. I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, and I understand that it can take many, many years of research and study. I am not saying anything you do not know already, but what I am just trying to explain is that there is always that ambition to get that cure, to get that outcome, as quickly as possible. But at the end of the day we are dealing with human beings, and the fact is that it just takes the time it takes to get the evidence we need to prove a certain strategy or otherwise. So government has to be very mindful of that, and we really have to be vindicated by evidence in order to launch forward with whatever strategy we take at the end of the day. And that is what this is really going to be about: what is the correct strategy and what is the best way forward? We have seen some successful outcomes. It is not an end point, there are still people addicted to nicotine, but it does show that we are having an impact—and a positive impact.

When we are looking at evidence, there is inconclusive evidence that e-cigarettes are safe or effective for smoking cessation; hence it would be irresponsible and ill advised for our government to support the use of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool outside of what is prescribed within a medical setting at this time. I cannot predict the future, and who knows what will unfold with further study, evidence and the like, but at this point we do have to be mindful of the evidence that is readily available. I am going to go a bit further on that issue because I think that is really the pivotal point here.

Actually I am going over a little bit of the ground that Ms Crozier had discussed as well with regard to the Senate having resolved to establish a select committee on tobacco harm reduction and that this committee is conducting an inquiry into tobacco-reduction strategies including nicotine e-cigarette products. This will include exploration of the legislative and regulatory frameworks in developed countries similar to Australia, such as the UK, New Zealand, the European Union and the United States. And I do just want to pick up on a claim that Mr Limbrick has referred to from the UK Royal College of Physicians stating that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than smoking. It is an estimate and not a finding from scientific studies, with the World Health Organization publicly dismissing this claim as not based on evidence. So we do have to show that correct level of caution, because we obviously have a whole population here, and we have to be concerned about the ramifications at the end of the day of decision-making in this regard.

There are several points here with regard to evidence that I want to pursue. No e-cigarette products have been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and that is a strong statement in and of itself. Knowing that this is certainly, if you like, the highest regulatory body in our country, I think we have to take that into account as well; we cannot dismiss that. I should say that it is for therapeutic use. There is no certainty around the ingredients that an e-liquid may contain or that they have been produced in sanitary conditions. And so whilst on the one hand one might say, ‘Well, are e-cigarettes less harmful than regular cigarettes?’, they are certainly not harmless. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption, and vaping could prove to be more harmful in some situations. The point is that the level of uncertainty in this regard is still too high. We need greater certainty in order to vindicate particular decision-making of our government.

Whilst on the one hand the vapour emitted from e-cigarettes may not contain tar or some of the other chemicals that you find in your regular cigarettes, numerous other potentially hazardous substances have been identified and directly linked to lung injuries and even deaths in other countries. Again, we cannot just dismiss that kind of information out of hand; we have to take that on board, and I am sure that Mr Limbrick would respect that—that it is not to dismiss it out of hand but to say, ‘Hey, we’ve got this information. We have to take it on board. We can’t just launch forth. The evidence just isn’t quite there yet’. I cannot define whether it will or will not arrive in the near future.

It is more important than ever that we consider the respiratory impacts of e-cigarette products that may impair the body’s ability to fight infection. There is also emerging evidence of adverse health impacts, such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer from the use of e-cigarettes or vaping. From that point of view you can see that there are still some red flags, and the issues raised there have not been overcome to date. Again, it is not for me to say that they will not be in due course, but at this point in time the evidence just does not justify proceeding. I also concur with what Ms Crozier said—that the TGA is progressing proposed amendments to the scheduling of nicotine in the commonwealth’s poisons standard, which would mean that all nicotine for human use will become a schedule 4 prescription-only medicine, with the exception of tobacco for smoking and approved nicotine-replacement therapies such as nicotine gums and patches, which are generally available as grocery items.

I am going to make some further qualifications here, because I did say that I really want to explore this issue of evidence very thoroughly. I think that is the turning point of this discussion. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners does not recommend this as a first-line treatment option. That says something to me. I am a layperson; I am not a doctor, but certainly we are going to refer to such reputable bodies when we are looking to guidance on how these issues are managed. There are several proven, safe and widely available pharmacotherapies, including patches and sprays, recommended for smoking cessation that should always be the first choice. So again we are looking at reputable bodies and saying, ‘Where is the decision-making at this point in time? Where is the evidence and what can we as a government vindicate in terms of the way that we proceed on this issue?’.

Now, some of the other things that do raise alarm bells for me are issues which have been discussed here as well with regard to young people. Whilst publicly stating that e-cigarettes are only for adults wishing to quit smoking, and I can see the argument there and the legitimacy in that argument, the e-cigarette industry continues to develop and sell products with novelty features and sweet confectionery flavours that make them particularly attractive and palatable to young people willing to experiment.

That is concerning to me, and I am sure it is to other people as well. On the one hand, yes, technically this is pitched at adults trying to transition away from cigarette smoking, but the marketing is also targeting younger people, knowing their vulnerability and knowing that desperate need when you are in adolescence to be accepted and thinking, ‘Well, this is kind of cool and happening. It’s got a nice taste and flavour about it. If I do this, I might just be that little bit more accepted’. I am not trying to trivialise the issue. We all know; we have been through adolescence and we know that vulnerable period in our lives. That is very concerning, and I think there is an issue of conscionability when you direct your marketing at somebody who is vulnerable and in that age group and specifically target a product in a way that you know is going to be harmful. I am just putting that out there. That is something that I cannot really stomach, and I know myself if I was in that position as a marketer—I have worked in marketing myself; I did work in pharmaceuticals—I would find it very problematic to be targeting young people.

Mr Finn: Nina from marketing.

Ms TAYLOR: Nina from marketing. Yes, exactly, or not exactly. Looking at the national drug strategy household surveyand some of the statements that are made, just to make some qualifications to make sure that we are very clear about this space, because I want to bring it back to that recurrent theme of evidence and where matters are at. We note that Mr Limbrick has misrepresented the data from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019 report through his statement that vaping is primarily used as a quitting tool by smokers. When participants in the national drug strategy household surveywere asked why they first started using e-cigarettes, 44 per cent of smokers responded that they were attracted to e-cigarettes due to the desire to quit.

However, it is dishonest to claim that this data means that these people are currently using e-cigarettes as a quitting tool or that they were successful in quitting through their use of e-cigarettes. I do not mean that to land heavily. I am just trying to be really factual in the debate, because again I really do respect this debate, and I think it is a good debate to have because the only way that we are going to proceed forward and to evolve and to be able to help drive down rates of addiction further is to discuss and debate the evidence in a mature way, which I believe is exactly what is happening in this chamber right now. So I hope that that lands in a respectful way, because that is the way it is meant. It is not in any way to be exceptionally critical on this issue. If I was an expert, I would have other data as well, but obviously I am relying on the data of the most esteemed authorities that we have in Australia and comparators across the globe. I think that the select committee and other activities underway now may very well help to guide this space into the future, and who knows what will emerge into the future with regard to this kind of substance.

The other thing I was going to say was there were some emerging studies—just to finish off on the point of evidence—from the US, Canada and the UK also suggesting that for young people e-cigarettes may have a gateway impact on the uptake of smoking cigarettes, which would seem to be counterproductive because the whole point here is to use them as a tool, I would have thought, to get off cigarettes and hopefully to end up not addicted at all. If there is that risk as well, that is something that has to be explored very carefully and certainly counteracted. In 2017 the chief executive officer of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released a statement saying:

There is some evidence from longitudinal studies to suggest that e-cigarette use in non-smokers is associated with future uptake of tobacco cigarette smoking.

Factoring in these issues that I have discussed here today, there is just not sufficient certainty at this point in time with regard to the evidence to be able to proceed beyond that position where we are now, with the caveat that there is that national select committee and other work underway to see where this could end up, what evidence may emerge and what outcomes may be viable in the future. I hope that that has given you a bit of a rounded discussion on the issue, bearing in mind the evidence at hand to date.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14:35): This motion calls for nicotine liquid to be legalised as a consumer product with appropriate regulations. More Australians are using e-cigarettes to vape nicotine, which I will simply call vaping. Many are young and have never smoked, and there are concerns that it may induce some to take up smoking. However, vaping nicotine is much safer than smoking, while still addictive, and it is helping many quit smoking.

Right now a federal Senate select committee on tobacco harm reduction is examining these issues, and I draw on submissions to their inquiry for information in this speech. There are three reasons why people might want to legalise vaping. First, it may accelerate the decline in smoking by helping people quit. Second, it is a money-making opportunity, particularly for the big tobacco companies campaigning to legalise it. Third, legalisation would prevent a black market from developing. So should we legalise it as a treatment?

A recent meta-analysis by researchers from the ANU examined nine randomised trials of e-cigarettes, finding insufficient evidence that nicotine vaping was a more effective treatment than alternatives. Even in one of the more promising studies, where vaping was more effective than other nicotine replacements, more than 80 per cent of participants were smoking again 12 months later. Normally we ask medical authorities, including the Therapeutic Goods Administration, rather than MPs, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments and the need for them. The Greens support this process because it is conducted by experts less susceptible to lobbying and donations from powerful corporations that stand to make billions. I wonder if any MPs present or their parties have been lobbied to support legalisation or received donations from businesses that stand to benefit from this. But the hands-off, impartial TGA evaluation of clinical trials is not what is happening here. We are being asked to approve nicotine vaping as a commercial product, and it is being justified by therapeutic claims. So what could go wrong?

The Royal College of Physicians assessment that vaping is at least 95 per cent safer than smoking is encouraging when contemplating whether to offer this as a therapy to a nicotine-dependent smoker. But it does not reassure me that we can therefore sell it to a non-smoker. While there is uncertainty around the safety of long-term inhalation of nicotine, the greatest concern comes from studies reporting non-smoking teenagers becoming addicted to nicotine via vaping and turning to smoking. A meta-analysis calculated that people who have never smoked who have vaped were three times more likely to take up smoking compared to those who have not vaped. While this might be explained by differences between those who vaped and those who did not, the size and consistency of this association between vaping and subsequent smoking is alarming.

Some hope that if we simply allow vaping, as other countries have done, it will reduce the prevalence of smoking by replacing it. Think of legalising vaping in Australia as similar to importing cactoblastis moth to control prickly pear. But we should also ask if it might be more like importing cane toads to control cane beetles. Only 11 per cent of Australians smoke daily, which is less than most other developed countries, and it is less than 2 per cent in teenagers aged 14 to 17. After heavy promotion in the US, vaping has increased and 20 per cent of US high school students have vaped in the last month. Their smoking prevalence has declined as vaping has increased, but smoking has been more prevalent in US teens than in teens in Australia, and the balance between quitting smoking via vaping versus starting smoking via vaping may be unfavourable here, where fewer teenagers smoke. Furthermore, much of our public health success comes from the denormalisation of smoking, and this too may be undone by vaping, which mimics smoking. Vaping could become a public health cane toad.

However, the third reason for legalisation may yet force our hands. None of us wants a nicotine black market in the hands of organised crime. Currently thousands of Australians either buy nicotine from smoking supply shops or import it without prescription. This is illegal but not enforced. Tobacco companies are promoting their new product relentlessly, and vaping is now endemic in many countries visited by Australians. The demand for nicotine liquid may become unstoppable here in Australia—to the point that legalisation in some form may be unavoidable. We may already be close to that point. So the Greens would support making nicotine available on prescription for addicted smokers and vapers if recommended by health authorities.

We await next year’s results of the ANU’s public health assessment of e-cigarettes. For now we accept the majority opinion among Australian population health experts that nicotine vaping should not be legalised as a consumer product.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:40): I am not a smoker; I have never smoked. My grandfather died from cancer related to smoking when I was young, and I determined then that I would never smoke. He is only one of many, many millions who are dead because of smoking. Vaping will stop these deaths. Vaping and other technologies like heat not burn are silver bullets. They are a knockout blow to smoking-related deaths, at least 95 per cent safer than smoking—95 per cent is the worst case—and vastly more effective as a quitting tool than any other process available on the market.

David is the reasonable part of our odd couple here; I am less circumspect. We have a preventative medical-industrial complex in this country that has seized control of the health debate. Many do-gooders in the public service and in not-for-profits, on large salaries, know what must be done to make us safer—a bunch of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats that drive a vast number of government interventions into our lives in the name of protecting us from ourselves. COVID-19 has empowered this group as never before. We are already hearing calls to make the state of emergency permanent, or at least an annual thing so we can deal with influenza and other diseases that plague us every year. The ultimate aim—to encase us all in tanks of gel, feed us nutrients through a tube and simulate an appropriate level of exercise via electric shocks—must seem closer to realisation than ever.

And yet this same group is implacably opposed to vaping. This group is driving the government push to ban vaping. You have got to ask yourself why. Why would those who are dedicated to keeping us healthy, even against our own choices, want to stop a massive life-saving product like vaping? If I were cynical, I might suggest that lots of people would be out of jobs if smokers actually quit and take up vaping. Lots of people who make very nice livings campaigning to end the scourge of smoking would have to go and find something else to do. Governments would be out of pocket billions every year. Big tobacco would be forced to change their products to something safer if they wanted to compete with the many new vaping product suppliers. Many people’s cosy business models would be upended.

I have spoken with many vapers. They have a message for you. I have a message for you. Let me be clear: we cannot afford to wait. If you do not support this motion, you want people to die. All those out there campaigning against vaping want people to die. This is an objective fact. Vaping will save hundreds of thousands of lives. Blocking it will kill these people. Postponing it will kill people until you legalise it. The hatred of smoking and of big tobacco has become pathological. It has metastasised and turned into a hatred of smokers. You literally want to kill the people who will not or cannot accept your approved quitting paths. You have lost your moral credibility. You have become the monster you are claiming to fight. If you will not legalise vaping, you are no better than big tobacco: you have become the killers. Let me repeat: if you oppose this motion, you want people to die.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:44): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in regard to vaping. I have had the benefit of sitting in the chamber and listening to some of the debate today. I have got the talking points, I know the debate in the chamber today has really centred around the benefits of vaping, and I listened to Mr Quilty’s contribution as well. I am not entirely sold, Mr Quilty, on the fact that you say if someone opposes this motion, they want people to die. I think it is a little bit of a stretch to say that, and I am not sure how that entirely fits into the entire debate about vaping. It seems quite an extreme position to take. Nevertheless, you are entitled to take that position, but I am also entitled to disagree with you on that.

I was a smoker myself many, many, many years ago, and I gave it up without vaping. I was able to do that. And I have known many people throughout my life who were also smokers, and they have chosen to use either nicotine chewing gum or patches and the like to try and reduce their use of cigarettes and the like. So I think the thing to note is that smokers are a broad group of people. What might work for one person in trying to reduce their cigarette habit may not work for somebody else. What we also know is that weaning yourself off cigarettes can help for some people; some people have to just do it cold turkey. So there is not a one-size-fits-all that works for people, and sometimes people spend many years trying to break the cycle of cigarettes.

I had a very interesting conversation with Mr Finn over there in regard to how he gave up cigarettes, which was through hypnotherapy, and so there you go. So I guess the point of what I am trying to say is that you have got to figure out what works for you, and vaping might work for some people, but it is not going to work for everyone. And so to cast a broad net over the whole thing and say it is either this or that, it is either all or nothing, is kind of not helpful.

I know I have spoken on this in this chamber before. I am just thinking I have got a strong feeling of deja vu on this because, Ms Patten, I remember you raising this. So we have had a bit of recycling going on in the chamber as well over this year—because I know we all love recycling. I think we had—was it the fifth go on the toxic soil thing today? And this might be the second or maybe the third go at this one. But that is okay. Recycling is good for the environment, as we all know.

As I said, e-cigarettes are one thing that some people may want to use as a cessation tool. It is just one thing. Is it going to work for everyone? No. Likewise with nicotine liquid. Again, is it going to work for everyone? No. I personally think that because vaping is such a new thing, we do not really know the long-term consequences of these things. I know some of the younger kids are very interested in it, because they think, ‘Well, it’s not tobacco, and it may not be harmful’. And just looking at the notes, there is a lot of data on this. I do recall the last time I spoke on this. In my contribution I went into great detail about some of the data that was around about how it can be harmful for some people and some of the hospital presentations that have resulted from vaping and using some of the liquids. So I think with some of the products that are used in vaping, the jury is out when it comes to that.

So look, it is a complex subject, but of course what we all know is that if people want to quit cigarettes, then they should be supported in that. I know that there are a lot of good government programs. I know the Cancer Council has help for people who want to give up smoking. Vaping is not necessarily the thing of choice for all people. It is a new option. You know, people get addicted to nicotine and they rely on it, and sometimes it can take many years. I think I recall Mr Finn had quite a journey himself in regard to that, so good on him for finally kicking the habit. But it is an addictive thing, and it takes time for the brain to also learn to replace those behaviours that you might have relied on. I know that with cigarettes for some people they might have been at the pub and having a drink, and having a cigarette goes with that whole thing around talking with your friends and having a beer. You have got the cigarette in your hand so it is a whole kind of habit that forms around it, reinforced by other things at that time.

I never went to the pub and had a beer and had a cigarette in my hand at the same time, but I am just saying I could imagine that if you did, because you have got a cluster of other behaviours around that, to try and then go to the pub with your friends and have a beer in your hand or whatever in your hand and then not have a cigarette as well might be tricky.

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TERPSTRA: Alcohol I was talking about; I think you went somewhere else there, Mr Finn, that I was not contemplating. But the point of what I am saying is that people develop other behaviours around their drinking and socialising with people, and cigarettes are part of that if you are a smoker. So again it is about changing behaviours and substituting perhaps other things for different types of behaviours. I am not quite sure how vaping would fit if you are at a pub having a drink with a friend and you can vape in the presence of other people. I do not know how that would work. As we know with cigarettes, at the moment you might have to exit a venue that you are in to go and have a cigarette outside because you are not allowed to smoke indoors these days. I am not sure how all that plays out.

But in any event I might just touch on, and I did mention this in a previous contribution when I talked about some of the statistics, the 2019 national drug strategy household survey. The results highlight that e-cigarettes appeal to people who have never smoked, and I remember this from my previous contribution. It is like trying to appeal to a demographic that cigarettes do not already touch, and perhaps this appeals to a new section. But as a government that takes the harms of smoking and nicotine addiction seriously, we do not want to re-normalise smoking behaviours. Those are some of the things that I have just talked about—being in a pub, having a beer, having a cigarette, a set of behaviours or a cluster of behaviours that kind of normalises cigarettes. Also, the whole point of smoking is nicotine addiction, and we do not want to normalise that for young people.

I just might outline some more statistics that perhaps are not mentioned in the motion. While more than two-thirds, or 69 per cent, of people first trying e-cigarettes were smokers, nearly a quarter considered themselves to never be a smoker. That can be interesting in and of itself, because sometimes people might say, ‘Well, I’m not a smoker but I smoke socially’, so they might have a cigarette once every three months yet not consider themselves to be a smoker. They might say, ‘Well, I’m only a social smoker’, so again it is also people’s own perceptions of what they consider themselves to be, which makes it even more tricky. But more than half of people—54 per cent—tried e-cigarettes just out of curiosity. That is okay; you are curious, that is fine. This was especially the case for never smokers at 85 per cent and young adults aged 18 to 24, which was 72 per cent. The same survey results show that of smokers who attempted to quit, 16.8 per cent used e-cigarettes to cut down and only 6.3 per cent used them to actually quit.

So while the survey results generally showed increases in e-cigarette use, there was no significant increase in people using e-cigarettes to quit between the 2016 and 2019 surveys. The majority of people trying to quit still reported going cold turkey above turning to e-cigarettes as a reliable quitting method. E-cigarettes might be one step in the journey for some people when they do ultimately get to their destination of quitting, but it seems to suggest that cold turkey worked for the majority of those people in that survey at the time.

I remember my own quitting journey. Certainly e-cigarettes were not around at the time that I quit because it was many, many years ago, and the thing that made me quit actually was watching my father die of lung cancer. That is pretty sobering, to watch someone die of lung cancer. It still took time. I tried to cut down first and then all the things that I have just talked about: replacing habits, so things that I used to do or places I used to go or people I used to see where I would have a cigarette, trying to change those habits to kind of work on the triggers that would make me want to feel like a cigarette. It is not just like literally throwing the cigarettes in the bin and never going back to them. It is changing the behaviours and the habits about how you socialise and how cigarettes are incorporated into part of that.

And it took a while, notwithstanding the fact that I saw my father die from lung cancer. He suffered a horrible death, really, from it, and there was nothing that could be done. It still took time to work through those nicotine cravings and addiction. So, again, some people will struggle with this their life long. They will try a number of different things to get off smoking, but I think the consistent advice is that when you are trying to quit you do not actually give up from quitting. Perhaps you might have four, five, six, seven, 20 attempts at it, but that is okay because you are still on that journey of getting there. So it can take a long time, and oftentimes what you will find is the length of time in-between when you bust and go back to smoking can be longer, which is still a good achievement for people as well.

I think the question is around the use of vaping or e-cigarettes—however you want to describe it—in the context of quitting. Are we encouraging people at some point to replace one thing, or a tool, with something else? How does it impact your quitting journey? Are we really encouraging people to vape in exchange for cigarettes—instead? But as the survey tends to bear out as well, someone might go on to vaping, but then do they still want to quit that as well, because they might think, ‘Even though I don’t want to smoke anymore, I’m still inhaling some kind of chemical thing—herb, whatever it is, liquid—and I don’t want to do that to my lungs anymore, regardless’. Even if they think it is safe, they might think, ‘It’s just something that I don’t want to do anymore. I might want to take up jogging or something’. And inhaling stuff might not be so great for the lungs if you want to go jogging—just a thought, really.

It is an interesting topic. Vaping is a thing—I know that—and there are plenty of people who want to explore it and all the rest of it. But, again, it is just one of those things we are not entirely sure about. But I would just encourage anyone out there who is wanting to quit smoking: find that thing that works for you. The Cancer Council, government programs, Quit—all those things are fantastic programs; more strength to your arm. You might want to try hypnotherapy—whatever it is that works for you. If you are on that quit journey because you want to reduce your use of cigarettes and reliance on them, keep going. It is not easy. Just put one foot in front of the other and be kind to yourself, knowing that you will fall off that wagon occasionally, but you keep going, and you will get there in the end.

As I said, it is a tricky topic. I might leave my contribution there with a minute and a bit more on the clock. So it is a tricky contribution, and I look forward to seeing how the chamber votes on this one.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:58): There is a slight feeling of groundhog day because I think when we started this motion earlier this year I spoke after Ms Terpstra did. I would just like to start by congratulating Ms Terpstra and Mr Finn on successfully quitting tobacco and successfully quitting smoking. As both of you attest, it is not easy. It is incredibly difficult, and this is why this motion is important. This is why: we can look at providing every tool to stop someone dying from lung cancer. As Ms Terpstra mentioned, she has a very personal connection with that, and many of us would have a friend or a family member who has died from smoking-related diseases. In fact it is, as this motion puts it, one of the biggest killers. It kills hundreds of thousands of people in Australia every year. So we should be doing everything that we can to stop that, to reduce that, and we know that we are not. We are not because we are refusing to accept the science around vaping. We are refusing to accept the science around tobacco harm reduction.

People say, ‘We’re not entirely sure. There’s not been enough evidence’. I have just been reading—and I was actually very privileged to write the foreword for—the Global State of Tobacco Harm Reduction 2020. In this report it shows that actually there have been about 6000 studies done on vaping. We know the science. We know that, yes, it is not entirely safe, but neither is aspirin and neither are vitamin D tablets. In fact there is probably nothing in this world that is 100 per cent absolutely safe, but what we do know is that they are far safer than smoking. We do know that these do not affect your lungs in the same way as smoking does. We do know that smokers who use vaping as a form of quitting or reducing the number of cigarettes that they have are very successful—far more successful than patches, far more successful than chewing gum and I would possibly even say more successful than hypnotherapy.

Vaping has proven to be extremely successful in assisting people to reduce the harms of tobacco smoking; there is no doubt. I know the previous speaker, Ms Terpstra, has a good interest in Japan. Japan has cut its rates of smoking by 32 per cent since the introduction of heat-not-burn tobacco and vaping—32 per cent. Guess how much Victoria has reduced its smoking rates in the same time? It is 1 per cent. We actually had a goal to be, I think, down to 5 per cent smoking rates by the year 2010. All right, we did not hit that—failed. Let us set it for 2020—failed again. In fact our smoking rates have remained stagnant in Australia and in Victoria for years now.

What we actually saw during COVID, probably for the first time in 50 years, was an increase in smoking in Victoria. Those stats will come out in just a few weeks, but they will show that there has actually been an increase in smoking rates in Victoria since COVID and during COVID. That is incredibly alarming, and we know that it actually affects our low-income and most disadvantaged people. If you pick the five most disadvantaged postcodes in Victoria, that is where you will find the highest levels of smoking. So this motion is very important in that.

I know Ms Terpstra talked about the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the household survey, but because we do not assist people to access this very, very good and safer treatment for reducing or quitting smoking, we do not enable people to do that. In New Zealand they are looking towards zero smoking. They are looking to be a smoke-free country by 2030, and they are on track. Do you know what they are using? They are using vapes. They are using e-cigarettes. They are using these nicotine devices where you do not smoke, and they are finding incredible success.

They did this really interesting study with some Maori women. These were Maori women in a very disadvantaged part of the North Island of New Zealand. These women were struggling to pay for their tobacco and food for the table, and quite often they were skipping meals to ensure that their children had food and that they could maintain their addiction. In that case the New Zealand health department ran a pilot where they offered them vapes, and 50 per cent of them stopped smoking—50 per cent. You do not see those types of quit rates anywhere—ever—with cold turkey or just say no or patches or Nicorette. This was a phenomenal result, and that result one year later is still at that rate. They had an incredible result there. Why are we not allowing this? We look at harm reduction in every other way.

Australia was one of those early adopters for needle and syringe exchanges because we knew that if we could provide clean equipment to people who were using drugs intravenously that that could prevent diseases like HIV and hepatitis C from being transmitted, and we were right and we were successful. So why are we not taking this same approach of harm reduction when it comes to tobacco? I just do not know.

And people say, ‘Oh, it’s big tobacco’. Well, I tell you, by prohibiting these types of products you are falling straight into the hands of big tobacco. Big tobacco loves the prohibition on e-cigarettes—absolutely loves it. This is the best thing for them. Now, this is very speculative but I have questioned the Cancer Council because one of their biggest donors is Woolworths. Guess what? Woolworths is the biggest retailer of tobacco in Australia. I know I am probably putting two and two together and getting five, but the Cancer Council opposes this harm reduction product. It opposes it—says you should not use it, there is not enough research, it might be dangerous. They will concede that it is safer than smoking, but they will not accept that it should be part of a harm reduction policy, a harm reduction platform, a smoking cessation platform. They do not accept that, and that is the problem, but they accept money from one of the biggest tobacco retailers in Australia.

I know there are other smokers who want to speak. I am not a smoker. I was a smoker. I am a vaper though. And I do not vape often because I did not smoke often. I was a social smoker and I am a social vaper, but I have not touched tobacco for, well, we are getting on nearly two years, and I am around smokers a lot. From a personal perspective I have found that it worked for me, and from the number of people who have written to me about how it has saved their life, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Victorian government—who has been a leader in harm reduction, a leader in harm minimisation—would not fully support nicotine vaping as a safer alternative for smokers. I fully support this motion.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:07): I rise to call on the government to support tobacco harm reduction via nicotine vaping, as a safer alternative for smokers who are unable to quit through other methods, and to legalise nicotine liquid for vaping as a consumer product with appropriate and risk-appropriate regulations. Why I rise today to support vaping and to make sure that they have those nicotine products is because we are able to have those nicotine products in other forms. We can have them in chewing gum, we can have them as a spray, we can have them in a patch, so why not allow our community to have it in liquid form, regulated, over the counter with all the other products for over-18s? It just makes perfect sense to me to have that available rather than people going onto the dark web and getting it imported from other states or other places. It makes perfect sense to me to have that available to the community for them to stop smoking.

There has been a lot of debate today, and I must say that some of the debate that I have heard today is a little alarming—to think that we as a community here in Victoria cannot see that it is necessary for the community to have this available to them. Earlier today we had the Liberal Democrats speak to the toxic waste dump in Bacchus Marsh. I must say with vaping I understand that the chemical used is from a fog machine, and that is not a fantastic chemical. But it can be a tool to help people to stop smoking if that is what they need. It clearly shows in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s National Drug Strategy Household Survey2019 report that what has happened by banning nicotine for vape is it has actually increased the problem. It has made it difficult for people who are trying to quit smoking to have that tool available to them. If we know that there is a tool available for people to help them to stop smoking, we should make that tool available.

I would hope the government would reconsider their position, seeing that there is clear evidence from around the world—from the United Kingdom’s Royal College of Physicians and others—and allow adults to make those adult choices with the information that they can get and that is available everywhere for them to make those choices. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (15:11): My name is Mark, and I once inhaled! I am a former smoker. Funnily enough, Mr Finn and I were having a bit of a chinwag out the back earlier today and we talked about the time frames in which we have given up. I think between us we have reached our silver anniversary—a combined 25 years.

I am pleased to rise to this because I think the issue of tobacco smoking is a very, very important issue in our community and it should not be taken lightly, and it is not. The one thing I get from almost all of the contributions—I am not sure that Mr Quilty went down this track; I might have missed it—is everybody is very aware of the harmful effects of tobacco smoking and that there is no good that comes of it no matter how you consume that product or any by-products such as nicotine. It is bad for you, it does not do you any good and it will indeed cause you immense harm. So I am very pleased that we are having the debate.

I am a little bit concerned, I have got to say, having listened to some of the contributions, that the suggestion is that if the government does not back vaping as an alternative or some form of methodology to quit smoking, then somehow we are sanctioning the use of tobacco. I think our bona fides have been clear, and these very loose, emotive suggestions that fly around can be offensive. I do not think it is helpful when people suggest that if we do not support this motion, we are killers. I do not think that helps the debate at all. It does not bring anything to the debate, and in fact I think it diminishes the very serious problems that are associated with tobacco smoking.

I have got to say that when you give up smoking it is a very, very difficult thing to do. I do not know too many people who give it up the first time, who do not lapse and then relapse. You know, you kid yourself that, ‘Oh, maybe I can just have one or two when I’m out having a drink at night’. You fall into that trap, and before you know it you are back into your packet-a-day habit.

I think it is very important that as a Parliament, not just a government but a Parliament, when we debate these sorts of propositions—this is ostensibly a medically based debate; it is based on the health of our citizens—we rely on the evidence. We must rely on the conclusive research that is available to us at any one moment in time, and the fact is, notwithstanding people’s particular views about the merits of vaping as a quitting methodology or tool, the authorities, the experts in this field, do not land in that place. They have not yet landed in that place. It would be wrong, and I can imagine a myriad of other circumstances where, if this government was up here urging this place to support a proposition that was going to be aimed at the health of our citizens without absolutely conclusive evidence, we would quite rightly be pilloried. There would be campaigns all over the place—I dare say there would be people out in the streets—and we would be laughed at. It is not a laughing matter, of course, but I think what we do need to do is ensure that when we are going to consider these very important public health and public policy positions we rely on the experts. I know that not all of the experts will always line up and always agree—that is a given—but we certainly do know that in most instances where the majority of our scientists will line up on a particular issue is where there is a lot of evidence that supports a particular proposition.

That is not the case here. The jury is still out on any number of these particular issues. I would be the first one, as a former smoker and now a reformed smoker and understanding the difficulties of going through that quitting process, to champion alternative methods that reduce the use of tobacco and nicotine in Victoria, particularly amongst our young people. I do not think the evidence is there on this particular methodology. I look forward to the continuing research in this area so that we can continue this important debate. (Time expired)

Motion agreed to.

COVID-19

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (15:18): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes that:

(a) free assembly and expression are fundamental and well-recognised human rights, essential to the functioning of a free and democratic society, as recognised in:

(i) articles 19 and 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN with Australia’s support;

(ii) articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory;

(iii) rulings of the High Court of Australia, including the 1997 Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation case, which accepts that Australians enjoy an implied freedom of political communication;

(iv) sections 15 and 16 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006;

(b) Australian law and the High Court decision in Lange recognise that certain measures may limit these rights but such limitations must be reasonably appropriate and adapted to a legitimate purpose;

(c) public health restrictions throughout the pandemic restricted the right to free assembly and provided no reasonable way for protesters to gather safely and in compliance with the law;

(2) calls on the government to restore and protect the right to free assembly in Victoria by:

(a) relaxing restrictions as far as is necessary;

(b) providing clear guidance on how the right to protest may be lawfully exercised in Victoria; and

(c) ensuring that future public health directions allow for protesting to be a legitimate reason to leave the home.

Over this past year Victorians have been arrested for Facebook posts, for going outside, for travelling more than 25 kilometres from their home, for leaving their home at night and for assembling and protesting against the government. There are severe restrictions on the rights of movement, association, speech and assembly—rights that the Liberal Democrats exist to safeguard and to fight for. There are reasons these rights exist in democratic countries, because without them it is impossible for a country to remain democratic. Without the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly you cannot have a functioning democracy. If it were not for the fear of a pandemic these actions would be viewed as the actions of a totalitarian dictator. Rarely, if ever, have the rights of Victorians been abridged so severely and for so long. We have heard almost nothing from our supposed human rights watchdogs, and indeed some politicians in this place who like to market themselves as the defenders of citizens’ rights have not only failed to call out these rights abridgements but have actively supported the state in enforcing them.

We are now nine months into a state of emergency that has a maximum duration of six months.

We are still subject to emergency powers despite nine months of time that would have allowed a democratic response and despite a month of no cases whatsoever. We are subject to these emergency powers as an explicit response to a government failure. All COVID cases in Victoria’s second wave were traced back to hotel quarantine, which was a situation this government had sole responsibility for. This government let loose a second wave of COVID-19 on Victoria and then inflicted its second wave of emergency powers, depriving us of our fundamental democratic and human rights. I concede there is danger from COVID and that there are justifiable qualifications the state could place on freedom of movement and freedom of assembly. This motion argues that we have exceeded those limits—not just exceeded, but smashed those limits into dust, scattered behind the lumbering juggernaut of state overreach.

I will not accept that a failure to physically distance is a justification to force protesters into a confined space and to share water from communal buckets. I will not accept that this government needs to send armed state security forces to break into the homes of pregnant mothers and arrest them because they shared posts about attending a protest in a COVID-free area. I will not accept that a protest that took place entirely in cars should have been met with $40 000 of fines.

We saw a curfew that the government admitted had no health-related justification and we saw compulsory mask requirements against the advice of many health experts. We saw month after month of lockdown in communities that to date have never had a case of COVID-19. At one point it was illegal to leave your house to engage in political activity, regardless of other precautions or restrictions. Melbourne was converted into an enormous detention centre and anyone who disagreed with that had no right to petition the government.

This government has not only curtailed our rights but made no effort to facilitate a safe or legal way to exercise them. This government did not restrict the right to protest because it was a health imperative to do so. You did it because it was convenient. You restricted the right to protest because you cannot stand dissent. This government consistently relies on the precautionary principle. This attitude has been used to justify voiding human rights as a precaution. Adherents to this principle argue that in the face of any risk that is not fully and completely understood we ought to take extreme precautions. The precautionary principle is a paper-thin excuse to allow the state to wield authoritarian power.

The state itself is a risk to the health and safety of Victorians. The deprivation of liberty and the infliction of the hotel quarantine disaster are two examples of the harm states can cause. If we truly cared about the precautionary principle, we would take strong precautions against the abuse of state power. As a precaution, we should limit the state’s power. As a precaution, we should not allow nine months of dictatorial government control. As a precaution, we should enshrine our rights in our constitution.

To some this may sound kooky. They may think it is ludicrous to think our state might end up like Germany under Hitler or Italy under Mussolini or Spain under Franco, or Russia or Venezuela or North Korea or Iran or China or Syria or Egypt or Yemen or Sudan or Myanmar or Libya or Pakistan or Congo or Belarus or Cuba or Somalia or Vietnam, or any of the literally hundreds of countries that have been ruled or are currently ruled by authoritarian politicians.

I do not think you have to wear a tinfoil hat to worry that the state might not care about your individual rights. It is true for so much of the world and for so much of history. Living in liberty is the exception, not the rule. It is precious and it is worth protecting. But we do not see that kind of precautionary thinking, because the precautionary principle is always merely an excuse to wield state power. It is a way of justifying severe action when there is insufficient evidence.

It is my firm belief that without people standing up for our rights governments like this one will disregard them entirely, because individual rights are inconvenient. They get in the way of grand schemes, in the way of measures that are for the public benefit. If governments did not have to worry about the rights of annoying individuals, they could get so much more done—and all for the greater good, you understand.

What is one more Victorian getting roughed up by VicPol for being outside their house or for not being sufficiently deferential? What is one more Victorian dragged out of their home in handcuffs for wrong thinking or wrong speech? What is one more body amongst the foundations of utopia? The government looks at the restrictions on rights as the efficient functioning of government in a crisis. I look at it, and I see the shadows cast by the mountains of human skulls heaped up by the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century—and on all the evidence, you probably could not even make the trains run on time.

I call on the members of this place to join me and to send the message to the government and to every subsequent government that comes in in this state that we care about our rights and we refuse to give them up without a fight. The Liberal Democrats will always defend the rights of Victorians.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:25): I rise this afternoon to speak on Mr Quilty’s motion, and in doing so I commend him very strongly for putting this motion forward, because I think it is a very important motion, particularly as we near the end of 2020, which is a year like no other that we have certainly seen in our lifetimes and a year where I have to say we have witnessed some extremely distressing scenes on our streets as a result of people seeking to express their views, to exercise their basic rights. We should always remember of course that the right to protest is a fundamental right in any free and democratic nation. It is not for the first time this week that I rise to speak in support of human rights and civil rights, and it is so important that we keep them in mind.

There are some who will say that if you talk about human rights or civil rights, civil liberties, you are some sort of leftie crackpot. Well, I can assure you, and I am sure that most members of the house would be probably aware, that I am not a leftie crackpot. I can certainly guarantee that my concern for civil liberties has grown significantly over the years, as I have seen quite a few things that have made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It is quite extraordinary, and as Mr Quilty said, you just have to look around most of the world—and I say most of the world—to see the violation of human rights on a daily basis. In fact the violation of human rights in most countries in the world today is a way of life, and that is a tragedy and one that we should always be wary of.

I am tempted here to throw in the famous quote from the great Ronald Wilson Reagan, who said that the loss of freedom is never more than just one generation away, and that is the truth. If we are not careful, if we are not wary, if we are not standing up for our basic freedoms, they will be taken away from us.

There is no shortage of people in this world today who would take those rights off us, whether they be bureaucrats, whether they be politicians, whether they be trade unionists, whether they be journalists. They will take our rights off us, and they will not have a problem in the world in doing so. Of course it will be inevitably to enhance, to increase, their own power. There seems to be a correlation there, the less rights we have the more rights they have, and that is something that has concerned me now for quite a few years—to see the elites of this world treating us mere plebs as something less than should be respected.

I think what we have seen in the United States over the last four of five years is a fair indication that a hell of a lot of people are really sick of being treated badly by these elitists—they feel that their rights are just as important as people who might have a bit of money, who might have a bit of fame, who might have a flash car—just because they do not necessarily have all that.

Their rights—people with families who live in the suburbs or live in country towns or on farms—are just as important as the rights of anybody else. It has been interesting to see that over the last few years evolve in the United States, and I think, given the latest developments over there today, there may well be future evolvement in the not-too-distant future. But we will wait for a significant Supreme Court decision very, very soon. When you have almost half the states in the US taking a case to the Supreme Court, you know that there is something afoot. We will wait and see what happens. But certainly what we have seen in the US over the last few years is indicative of a revolution of sorts by people who have been trodden on for far too long, and that revolution must come here.

The thing that distresses me possibly more than anything else—although there are few things that distress me, I have to say—is those people who feel that their rights do not matter. They feel that they do not matter. They feel that they have no impact in life. They feel that they have no influence on what happens in here and what happens in Canberra. They feel that it does not matter what they do; they will not be listened to. Now, my view is that at some stage they are going to wake up and realise that for their rights to be taken seriously, for their lives indeed to be taken seriously, they are going to have to do what happened in the US, where ordinary folk—if I could use that term; I do not use it in a pejorative way, but folk who would regard themselves as ordinary folk—have taken a stand for themselves. I think that is a very, very good thing.

Now, one thing I want to point out is the role of Victoria Police in the demonstrations that we have seen this year. I do not hold the men and women of Victoria Police—the thin blue line, the rank and file—responsible for some of the scenes that we have witnessed on our streets this year. Certainly they have their orders and they have followed those orders quite often to the letter, and they have done what they would be expected to do under those circumstances. The people that we should be really concerned about—and this is where the real issue lies—are in the government that gives these sorts of orders that allow this sort of stomping of human rights to occur. That concerns me, because as Mr Quilty said, if we allow governments to do that, they will. There is nothing surer. I have to say that there is probably one side of the house more inclined to do that than this side, but there is every chance that, given the right sort of person running the show or the right set of people running the show, it could happen on either side, and that is something that we should all be aware of. That is something that we should all be very, very wary of.

That is why I do not support big government, because big government means that they have the view that they can tell us what to do—they can tell us how to live our lives, they can tell us what we need to do on a daily basis. They feel, because they are big, they are powerful and they are strong, that we are not and that they can tell us how we can live our lives, and that is what we have seen this year.

I have to say I have been deeply saddened and distressed by some of the scenes that we have seen this year. I recall being at home one Saturday afternoon. I think I was watching Sky News—how unusual. I was sitting on the couch, and there from the helicopter was a scene of a protest—it was a Reignite Democracy Australia protest or something similar to that—down near the Myer Music Bowl I think from memory. All of this vision was being taken from a helicopter above, and it was being shown in lounge rooms around Australia. It was fascinating to see the way the police worked and then the way the demonstrators moved. I thought to myself as they moved in toward the Royal Botanic Gardens, ‘Now, if they take Government House, we might have a show here’. But they did not even try. I thought to myself, ‘Isn’t it extraordinary where people can be literally hunted through the city of Melbourne?’, hunted down as they were on that particular occasion. I thought to myself, ‘What is going on in this country?’.

Acting President, this will probably surprise you personally, but I have protested on a number of occasions. In fact this might surprise you even more—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): I think I was there.

Mr FINN: I was just going to say it might surprise you even more that we may have actually been on opposite sides of the protest on a number of occasions. That is something that I believe is everybody’s right to do as long as they are peaceful. Yes, you can be loud. Yes, you can make your presence felt, but as long—

Mr Leane: You can be loud.

Mr FINN: You can be pretty loud yourself when you get going. But what we cannot allow are violent protests, and I have been a victim of the sorts of violent protests that I speak of, where people feel that they have a right to come and bash people, they have a right to knock elderly people down riding bikes and they have a right to cause all manner of physical distress to people. I remember a few years back now that a then member of this place, Andrew Elsbury, who was with me at a demonstration—the March for the Babies—had a rib cracked. A chap from the United States had a couple of ribs broken out the front of this building because demonstrators—the extreme, foul left—decided that they had the right to belt us up. Unfortunately on that occasion the police agreed with them and let them go, which I still shake my head about to this very day.

But I have been in that particular march every year for the last 12 years—sorry, 11 years because we did not have the march this year; it was all online. Whilst we had thousands of people viewing, we did not have the physical march this year for the obvious reasons, but we are certainly very much looking forward to being back on the streets next year. I am sure you, Acting President, will enjoy being with us again as we do our thing.

As I said earlier, I think it is fundamentally important that we all have the right to protest in a constructive, in a positive and in a non-violent, peaceful manner. It can be annoying. If you are driving and you do not know there is a protest going on and the streets are blocked, yes, that can be annoying. There are no two ways about that. I have been in that situation myself, and it can be very, very annoying. But that should not take away from the fact that people do have the right to protest in the way that they should.

I well remember many, many years ago a bloke called Joh Bjelke-Petersen up in Queensland: ‘Don’t you worry about that’. He declared a law that banned street marching. Now, I was, back in those days, a very, very great supporter, in fact a fan, of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. In fact I am still enamoured with the man; I thought he was wonderful. But even back then, and that is going back a long, long time now—probably when I was about 12 or 13 or something, so it is a long time ago—I was very unnerved by the thought that people could not actually protest in the streets.

I have protested since against a couple of Labor governments. I remember back in 1992 we had about 150 000 people out the front here—they filled down Bourke Street as far as the eye could see—calling for the Kirner government to resign. She did not, and it did not, but the election finally was called and—‘goodness gracious me’—out the door they went. But again it was everybody’s right to protest, just as six months later there were another 100 000 people out the front to protest, calling for the Kennett government to resign. These things come and go, they flow, and you just accept that that is the way it is. But if people feel strongly about it, they should be allowed to do that. It certainly beats the alternative where overseas you have people taking up arms, you have people throwing bombs and all of the more extreme elements of protest movements that we have largely managed to avoid by respecting everybody’s right to protest.

So I congratulate Mr Quilty—or is it Dr Quilty?—for his motion today. I support it very much. I think it is a fundamental principle that we all should support, and I urge everyone in this house to give this motion their support when the vote comes.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:42): I feel like I have stumbled into some form of parallel universe. That is often the case in politics—and in particular being a member of the Council, with its range of anachronisms—but to listen to Mr Finn talk to this place about the importance of the right to protest makes me feel like I have stumbled into some sort of David Lynch film without anybody telling me what the plot is or where the twists and turns are because—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms SHING: Careful, Mr Finn. It was in 2013 that the coalition government introduced move-on laws. Mr Finn was part of the coalition government at the very time that these laws were introduced. The Napthine government—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms SHING: The past hurts, doesn’t it? The past hurts, particularly when it is so at odds with what you say.

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms Taylor: On a point of order, Acting President: Mr Finn, parliamentary language, please.

Ms SHING: On the point of order, Acting President, I would like Mr Finn to withdraw that comment.

Mr Finn: Well, look, fair dinkum, if she takes offence at that, she should get a life. I withdraw that.

Ms SHING: On the point of order, Acting President, again, I would like Mr Finn to unequivocally withdraw that without any editorial.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn, please, will you withdraw.

Mr Finn: Just pathetic. I withdraw.

Ms SHING: Again!

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn!

Mr Finn: What exactly does the member wish me to withdraw?

Ms SHING: I want an unconditional withdrawal without the editorial.

Mr Finn: Of what?

Ms SHING: Please withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn, please withdraw.

Mr Finn: It is very, very hard for me to withdraw when I do not know exactly what I am withdrawing. I mean, you obviously want me to mean it, so I am just wanting to know what I am allowed to withdraw—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn, there were a number of statements you made directed to Ms Shing that were unparliamentary and derogatory, and I would call on you to withdraw.

Mr Finn: Whatever you say. I withdraw. Righto, whatever you reckon is fair then.

Ms SHING: Thanks, Mr Finn. So as I was saying—

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms SHING: I am getting pretty sick of this pattern of behaviour, to be honest.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Mr Finn, please allow Ms Shing to speak to this motion without interruption.

Ms SHING: So in 2013 the coalition government, of which Mr Finn was a part—it is a shame he is not sticking around for this factual information, which is completely at odds with what he has just gotten to his feet to talk about in promoting freedom of association in the vigorous way that he has just done—introduced and indeed passed move-on legislation. So they stood up, along with the former member for Box Hill—the then Attorney-General, Robert Clark—to talk about the importance of making sure that public order was maintained. And there was an extensive debate on this, during which those who now sit opposite argued fervently in favour of the ability of police to move people on in a range of specified circumstances. One of the things that came up at length in that debate was the question of proportionality and the question of implied rights of political communication and therefore, as an extension of that, political activism. And those opposite when they were in government argued and argued and argued, without a pandemic being in place at the time, that there should in fact be powers to move people on under certain circumstances. This was met with very fierce criticism from a range of stakeholders—from the sorts of stakeholders which Mr Quilty and Mr Limbrick might well consider to be allies in this particular course of the motion that we are debating today, because what those laws did was to fetter people’s rights to gather under certain circumstances, including where it might be anticipated that there would be a disruption to public order.

Now, I remember those opposite when they were in government being absolutely sanctimonious about the need for these laws. And now what we hear from those opposite is a sanctimony in completely the other direction. When the Andrews government was elected in 2018—in 2014, I beg your pardon. That was the most recent term of additions that came in in the Danslide. But when the Andrews government was elected in 2014 we scrapped it. We scrapped the move-on laws because it was in fact important for people to be able to gather for lawful reasons in order to express political opinions. So for those who are now lining up to decry the Andrews government for actions which do not enable people to gather peacefully for the purposes of demonstration or an expression of the implied right of political communication, including that espoused by the High Court in Langer and other common-law decisions about proportionality, I note in fact that we scrapped it, and it was interesting to hear what those opposite said when we actually quashed that legislation.

They had a lot to say. They were outraged. They were so outraged because, I mean, they were freshly in opposition and they had a lot to say about how wrong this was. And now we have heard from Mr Finn and we will no doubt hear from others about just how right it is.

Mr Leane: They only governed one term.

Ms SHING: There is probably a reason for why they only governed for one term, Mr Leane: because they could not actually get their narrative right. And what then happened in 2019? It is a bit of a history lesson, but it is a relevant one. In 2019—

Dr Bach interjected.

Ms SHING: Dr Bach, you could do with working on your narrative—your group over there. I respect your personal narrative. I have a great deal of time for your gravitas. If only your colleagues were quite so considered in the way in which they frame their contributions. But what I would like to bring the chamber’s attention to is that just last year, 2019, there was a private members bill—wait, have a think about this, a private members bill—by the coalition in fact to bring back these move-on powers. What? No, that was never going to happen. So the upshot is that just last year we had members of the opposition arguing precisely the opposite position to the one that they are taking today. And therefore I am not really prepared to take anything that they say without a bucket of salt, because it lacks credibility. It lacks an assessment of the legal and the policy matrix within which powers such as the implied right to political communication and the balance of proportionality, including through the operation of directions from the chief health officer, operate.

It lacks any sort of nuanced appreciation for the way in which the pandemic has cut a swathe through every part of the way in which we have lived, communicated, worked and connected over the course of this year. It has been completely without precedent, unless there is anybody here—and I know that we do have a number of antiques in the building, but I am not sure that they extend to anyone who was alive at the time of the Spanish flu.

The situation that we have here is as dramatic as any which we might imagine, and it continues to be the case globally. It is a pandemic which we now see as having well over 65 million cases, which we see as taking thousands of extra lives every day on continents around the world. Just at the moment, every 30 seconds in the US somebody loses their life to COVID—every 30 seconds. We are in the middle of an absolute crisis across a range of countries and jurisdictions which were ill equipped, which has required every bit of stamina, resilience and sacrifice from people on our front lines, people who have worked as our last lines of defence, people who have lost their lives in the service of their communities. This is a situation like no other.

I look to the recent decision of Justice Ginnane in the Supreme Court in the matter of Loielo—a matter which those opposite might be familiar with; I recall Mr O’Donohue in fact featuring in a number of photographs with the plaintiff at that time. A cafe owner, Michelle Loielo, seeking preselection for the seat of Nepean for the Liberal-National parties, argued that the curfew was in fact an unreasonable and unlawful incursion into her right to move freely and indeed to operate her business. Now, the crux of that case was ultimately based around the authority to issue the decisions which were issued with the delegation of the minister and whether in fact those decisions were made lawfully. That is a very, very swift and quick precis of the case. But in making his decision Justice Ginnane was clear that—notwithstanding the fact that decisions were made lawfully, whilst making a comment about the extent to which that should be the case—in fact the issuing of a curfew notification was a proportionate action in the context of the circumstances.

A curfew is a big deal. A curfew which limits people’s right to move around after a certain hour has enormous, enormous knock-on consequences for the quality of the life and the way in which people throughout our community live a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week life as far as engagement and connection with friends, workmates, families and support networks goes. It has enormous ripple effects. Nobody took that decision lightly. Yet the Supreme Court in fact noted that this was a reasonable and a proportionate response. What we have also seen is that other jurisdictions around the world are adopting curfews—Ireland, the UK, parts of the United States—parts of Europe including Italy, the town of Bergamo, which was at the forefront of the first wave and is now experiencing its second, with thousands upon thousands of people not just suffering survivor guilt but grieving the loss of so many of the ones that they loved.

What we see in this pandemic response has been absolutely a harsh set of restrictions upon our capacity to live, work, move around and connect. But what we have also seen is a careful balancing and the application of the principle of proportionality to act only so far as has been reasonably necessary and required to minimise or indeed stop the risk of transmission to the best extent possible.

These decisions have not been taken in a vacuum. These decisions have been taken off the back of daily cases, which not that long ago were over 700 a day. What we see now at the time that I am speaking is 40 days without any new cases. What we see is a remarkable template for the rest of the world to consider and, where other jurisdictions consider it appropriate, to adopt. These questions of proportionality are relevant to this discussion and they have a very specific role to play in the way in which we consider a motion like this one.

However, what we also need to do is to consider the current state of play as it relates to people’s rights to gather. At the moment, under the approach to COVID normal that has recently been announced by the Premier, which includes changes to the wearing of face masks and changes to the density quotients and to the social-distancing requirements in a range of different settings, there is the capacity for up to 100 people to gather in a public place and, in addition to that, for permits and applications to be sought for a greater number than that. What we see is a decision-making process which balances on a case-by-case basis the nature of the activity which is proposed, the way in which that may have an impact on those in the area who may not be participating and the way in which there may be consequential impacts to the public safety of the community. That is the protests which are over and above 100.

There is a capacity right now, at this minute, for people to gather and for people to protest. I am not talking about the issues at hand; I fully support the right to protest. Mr Finn and Ms Patten are not the only ones to have protested. Mr Limbrick has also been at protests, which was the subject of discussion earlier this year. It is really important that we as citizens who happen to have been elected are in a position to express our implied right to political communication and right to peaceful assembly as we choose to do. Provided that it is lawful and provided that it is not violent, I share Mr Finn’s position that those protests should be able to proceed.

They must be tempered against the requirements to socially distance. They must require a level of care toward those who are relying upon us as citizens to do the right thing. They must take into consideration the importance of public safety through a range of other measures, including carrying a mask with you at all times. Where those protests may enter, for example, a shopping centre, it is absolutely crucial and indeed a requirement of the current health directions issued by the chief health officer, for masks to be worn. The rationale that underpins that is where you are sharing company with large numbers of strangers, people you do not know, and where there is no capacity for check-in processes such as the QR codes which assist with contact tracing or the manual login of details such as exists within shops, cafes, pubs, restaurants and other communal and community facilities, these are the sorts of tempering arrangements which minimise the risks of transmission.

I have received a fair bit of correspondence, as no doubt have many of my colleagues here and in the other place and no doubt in every other parliament around the country—we know that it is happening in the US—indicating that masks are an unreasonable incursion upon the freedom to move around without a partially covered face. I am not sure which implied freedom that fits within, but masks have been a reasonable and proportionate response where we know that in a confined environment they will reduce the risk of transmission by up to two-thirds. Of course medical research and expert opinion continues to evolve with this virus. It continues to evolve in the way in which we consider the scope and the risk associated with those microdroplets and those aerosols which have been a hallmark of infection with this virus throughout the whole pandemic. There are countless examples of one person attending a dinner party who happens to be COVID positive and over the coming days everyone at that dinner party testing positive for COVID.

We know that spending any length of time in a confined space exponentially increases the risk of transmission. We do know that where people gather outdoors the risk is significantly less, and that is not in and of itself—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Ms Shing, I am just wondering, are you concluding here, or have you got more points? There is no hurry; we just have to close for cleaning.

Ms SHING: Let us close for cleaning, if that is all right, Acting President.

Sitting suspended 4.01 pm until 4.16 pm.

Ms SHING: As I was saying before the cleaning break, the proportionality argument is one which is sacrosanct in Australian law—not just in statute through the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, which enshrines 20 basic principles of rights, including freedom of assembly and rights to expression and protest, but also in the High Court’s consideration in cases such as Langer. What we need to remember also is that proportionality must be applied in the setting which is relevant at that time—that is relevant to that proposed change or that policy decision.

This is why when we in fact look at section (2) of the motion, which calls on the government to restore and protect the right to free assembly in Victoria, I note that we already have the right to free assembly in Victoria. Pursuant to current restrictions, that is the right of up to 100 people to gather, with the right to make application for additional numbers to gather, subject of course to the circumstances in which that may occur, as I have outlined earlier in my contribution. The part which I am vexed by is subsection (2)(c), which calls on the government to protect the right to free assembly in Victoria by (a), (b) and relevantly (c), which says:

ensuring that future public health directions allow for protesting to be a legitimate reason to leave the home.

Now, when we are talking about a legitimate reason to leave the home, we need to balance that very carefully against directions which have been found to be lawful in the curtailment of an issue or a risk of serious public health. This is where the pandemic has been the example that has set the scene for the importance of the balancing of these priorities and has brought home to us the importance of protecting life wherever we possibly can.

I know that there are many other speakers on this particular motion, and in the interests of freedom of expression I do not propose to continue my contribution any longer, save to acknowledge that I am looking forward to the support of every single member of the coalition when unions gather to express their political views, when members of my LGBTIQA+ communities gather to express our views and when those for whom an issue may cause extreme distaste gather to in fact have their voices heard. I look forward to printing out Hansard from those who have made a contribution opposite and perhaps looking at that for a little comfort around the right to personal, political and public expression.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:19): I rise to talk in support of Mr Quilty’s motion affirming this house’s support of the right to free assembly. The right to protest is not just enshrined in our Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, it is also part of the history of Western liberal democracies. I think I still remember very vividly the first protest I ever went to was actually protesting against the Iraq War. That was quite a shock to me, and I have been to many protests since. But since the pandemic started and the restrictions under the state of emergency started, I feel that there has been a problem with what we have in the human rights charter and this conflict with the directions under the state of emergency.

As Ms Shing rightly pointed out, there is this issue of proportionality. This is something that I have been following up extensively during my opportunities to question various ministers and public servants during Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings. What I think I have discovered is that when the public health directions are drawn up and the issue of proportionality and taking the actions that are the least restrictive of rights are considered—and they are considered—there is a mismatch between what is imagined by the people drawing up those directions and the reality of the enforcement of those directions. These are two very separate things. And what one imagines might be the rights of Victorians that are limited by these directions can in reality result in the restrictions of rights which were not envisaged when the restrictions were first drawn up, when the directions were drawn up, and there are many cases of this.

As part of my role as an MP and as part of my belief, of believing in the freedoms and rights of Victorians, with my colleague Mr Quilty I have been scrutinising very closely what has happened with the limitations of rights under this state of emergency. As part of that I have been paying extra special attention to the restrictions on the right to freedom of assembly. I have attended a number of protests and read about and talked to people who have been to other protests. Early on, back in May, there were protests around brumbies, I think out the front of this place; there were also protests in support of refugees at hotels; and there was also the protest around Aboriginal deaths in custody, which I attended, in June. I copped much criticism for attending that during the pandemic. One of the things that I noticed—and I said this to the Premier himself only the other week—is the government and the Premier copped a lot of criticism about allowing that protest to go ahead; even though they said it should not go ahead, it went ahead. But none of that criticism came from me, because I felt that the protest was actually managed quite well. The police acted in a very professional manner, they allowed people to exercise their right to free assembly and the protesters themselves were aware of the risks, and I witnessed this myself. They made every attempt possible to manage the risk of disease transmission. They were handing out hand sanitiser and masks to people—this was before masks were mandatory; people were voluntarily wearing masks and I voluntarily wore a mask myself. People did their best to stay apart from each other, and the protest was largely peaceful. I think there were a couple of arrests. One yahoo jumped on a police car or something—this sort of thing happens at every protest, I think—but generally it was a very peaceful protest. They had legitimate grievances that they wanted to express and that I had the opportunity to listen to.

However, at other protests, such as the one in support of refugees at the Mantra hotel, people were arrested, even though at some of these protests there were very small numbers of people—well below the limits. At the time of the protest about Aboriginal deaths in custody the limit was, I think, a group of 20 people. Now, at the time during the lockdown people were arrested for gathering in groups of two or three people to protest, or even walking by themselves carrying a sign. The reason that they were arrested and fined was not because they were gathering in large numbers, it was because they were leaving home for a reason that was not specified. This goes directly to the point that Ms Shing made about ensuring that future public health directions allow for protesting to be a legitimate reason to leave home. This is in direct response to people being arrested for carrying signs out on the street, even by themselves. They were fined because they left home and they were not exercising, they were not shopping, they were not going to work, they were not providing care. Therefore it was illegitimate, apparently, for them to leave home.

I know that other jurisdictions have been grappling with this same issue. I note that the United Kingdom has been discussing this in detail, and lots of people have been arguing for the government to acknowledge the right to political expression as a legitimate reason to leave your home.

Also we have seen a difference in the way that these directions are enforced. As I noted, the protest in June, the very large protest—I would estimate there were probably 10 000 people there—was very peaceful. Police acted in exactly the way I would have expected them to act. But then at the Cup Day protest, which I also attended, we saw a very different reaction. This was a smaller number of people—I estimated between 1000 and 1500 people. They were surrounded by police and squished into a small space together. As has been said, they were given water out of a communal bucket. Police fined around 400 people. I was one of the people at this protest as well; I went along to observe the reaction. However, the people there were no less peaceful than the people that I observed at the protest in June. The restrictions were not particularly different. The restrictions in June set a limit of 20 people; in November, on Cup Day, it was 10 people—not a lot of difference really—and yet the reaction to those was wildly different.

I accept what Ms Shing was saying—that there is an issue of proportionality, that there may be circumstances under which it is legitimate to have some sort of restrictions. However, it is not clear to people how they can maintain and express this right to free assembly that we are talking about. I think it is incumbent on the government, maybe using the experience they have had from what has happened during the policing of these events and policing of these directions, to learn from those experiences and to come up with ways to facilitate people being able to express their right to free assembly.

Now, there were many claims made about the protest in June that was talking about Aboriginal deaths in custody. Many people were worried about disease transmission. Everyone was worried that it might cause a big wave of disease transmission, but nothing of the sort happened. In fact I requested through this Parliament information from the previous Minister for Health about how many community transmissions happened because of that protest. The answer was zero; there was no transmission. So the risk-mitigation measures that were taken by the protesters apparently worked. Even though it was known at the time that apparently six people were positive with COVID-19 at the protest, there was no transmission at the protest. That is my understanding of what happened. So it would appear from the evidence that was provided by the Department of Health and Human Services that it is possible for people to mitigate these risks when they exercise their right to free assembly, and therefore it is incumbent on the government to facilitate means through which citizens can exercise this right.

Even in the current state, as Ms Shing pointed out, people can gather at up to 100 people. However, I do not think that anyone who organises a protest can actually manage exactly the number of people that will turn up. If I put up a Facebook event and say, ‘I want to have a protest; please come along’, and 1000 people turn up, even though I only wanted 100 people to turn up, it is very possible—and in fact we have seen it happen—that I could have the police knock on my door and I could get arrested for incitement. This is something that is not clear to people. I do not accept that it is in a practical sense possible for people to organise and exercise their right to free assembly without the risk of being arrested for either incitement or—

Mr Finn: What are you going to do? Are you going to have 10 protesters?

Mr LIMBRICK: Well, you could have 10 protesters, but I still do not know how you could limit the number of people that actually turn up. Usually at a protest they are trying to get as many people as possible to turn up. Limiting the number of people that could turn up seems very problematic.

If there are future lockdowns, God forbid—I hope that never happens, but if there are—then I hope that we can have a direction that the right to free assembly is a legitimate reason to leave a person’s home. I hope that there would be exceptions for protests, even during a state of emergency—as we are in at the moment and apparently are going to be under for some time yet—similarly to how we have events and other things with larger numbers of people in exceptional circumstances. I think that exercising your right to free assembly is a very important and exceptional circumstance, maybe much more important than a sports event or something like this. I hope that we do get clear directions from the government and the chief health officer and departmental officials on how we can exercise that right, and assistance from the police in facilitating that right, as we have seen is totally possible even during a pandemic.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:30): It is good to join the debate on this motion, and I will speak only briefly because I know that time is of the essence and numerous other members are very keen to have their say. It might surprise you to learn that I have never been much of a protest goer. In fact I consulted my memory before preparing a few notes today, and it is true to say that in fact I have never been to a protest or a demonstration—never, ever.

Mr Limbrick: Come along; I’ll show you what it’s like.

Dr BACH: Well, I will now, Mr Limbrick. I have been fascinated through this time in particular to listen to the accounts of Mr Limbrick, so it is great to follow on from Mr Limbrick in this debate. Whilst it is fair to say that I am not much of a demonstrator and that I seek to engage in the political process in other ways, I do nonetheless, as do I know my friends in the Liberal Democratic Party and many other friends across the house, take the rights that we are talking about today and the freedoms that we are talking about today really very seriously. I agree entirely with Mr Limbrick and with Ms Shing that when it comes to the application of these rights and any decision to curtail these rights it is hugely important to be consistent. Ms Shing laid down the gauntlet, as it were, to those of us on this side of the house to express our support for members of the LGBTI community to go out and protest. I am very happy to lend my absolute support to members of the LGBTI community who may want to go out and protest. I have many new friends today in the LGBTI community after I made some strong commentary yesterday regarding so-called gay conversion practices. Some people were surprised to learn my position. I am not quite sure why they were surprised to learn my position that the whole idea of gay conversion practices is medieval and deranged. Yet I find myself with some new friends, and so I say to my new friends, ‘Go and protest as you see fit’.

I have been troubled, noting that I have not been to any of the protests through this time, by numerous accounts of Mr Limbrick about the different treatment of different protests. This is an issue also that my friend Ms Shing touched upon. So, while I do want to be brief, I want to highlight that issue. I have said before in this house that I have been troubled by some of the commentary of some senior members of Victoria Police. Overwhelmingly the men and women of Victoria Police have acquitted themselves just magnificently at this time in deeply difficult circumstances, so I am a great supporter of the men and women of Victoria Police. But on rare occasions we have seen senior members of the Victorian police force making statements that I have found troubling and that I feel have been inconsistent. To come back to Ms Shing’s comments, we must never, ever seek to limit people’s ability to demonstrate or protest simply because we may like the cause for which they are protesting or we may not. I am really pleased that right around the chamber that has been affirmed today.

Some of my friends in Ivanhoe have not only put together a petition regarding the lights on The Boulevard but are seeking now to organise a demonstration. I understand from the Leader of the Government earlier today in question time—and Ms Shing, thank you for your further remarks—there is a permit system that we will now see put in place. I will pass that on to my friends in Ivanhoe and I will be really interested to learn more about the application process that Ms Shing spoke about, in particular coming back to this point about consistency. I thank her for her remarks on that important question.

I know that Mr Limbrick, other members of the Liberal Democratic Party and those of us on this side of the house have also sought to really carefully scrutinise the way that decisions have been made regarding the freedom to associate and broader freedoms regarding political speech at that time. That really important work will need to be ongoing. So I did want to take to my feet just briefly this afternoon in this debate to again affirm for the house and for the record my deep support for the right of association and the implied right of political speech and my sincere hope that we never find ourselves in the circumstance that we have this year, where we necessarily have to make trade-offs. I have made the point in this house before that I have supported some of the restrictions that have been put in place—indeed, many.

On occasion I do feel—I have made this point before, so I do not necessarily need to recapitulate today—that some of those restrictions have been overly heavy-handed. So I hope that we do not get back into that position. I hope we never, ever do. And yet, because of course we may, I do feel now the time is apt, as we are all so hopeful of moving in a prolonged sense into a new phase—a post-pandemic phase—to assess what has occurred in this really important space and to then make some commitments together as a house about what we would do, heaven forbid, if we were put back into a similar situation in future.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:36): I rise to speak in support of this motion today. The Greens are a party of participatory democracy and we fundamentally understand that a foundation of our democracy is the ability of Victorians to have their say on the actions and decisions of our governments. And protest—peaceful, safe protest—is one of the important ways we come together to have our collective voices heard and to advocate for change.

We know that non-violent protest is often one of the big drivers of social change and that much of the progress made over the last century has started with a person or group engaging in peaceful protest, from our LGBTIQ community fighting for equality and against intolerance to our civil rights activists and our anti-war protesters to the many who fought to save the Franklin Dam. They were all times when our community achieved change through collective action. Just this year Victorians have joined together in protest on a range of issues. In January we gathered in the wake of the worst bushfire season we have experienced to protest the inaction on climate change. In June we joined in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter protests in the United States and to acknowledge and commit to address our own shameful history of systemic racism against Australia’s First Nations peoples. And throughout the year the Djab Wurrung people and their allies have gathered to guard the sacred birthing trees from destruction.

The Greens fundamentally support the rights to free assembly and expression and the use of peaceful protest as an important way to object to the actions of our government and to keep fighting for the rights of people and our planet. We have condemned unnecessary and heavy-handed policing against protesters, like we saw at the Djab Wurrung embassy a few months ago. The Greens have raised the issue of safe protest during COVID with the government and asked for guidelines to be developed for how lawful protest can be undertaken in the context of a pandemic. It is worth remembering that in 2020 we have all had to learn to do things a little bit differently, and there are times where acting in the best interests of public health may mean limiting our ability to engage in certain types of protest. It might mean we need to adapt to new ways of being together, like wearing face masks or engaging in social distancing. In the worst cases it may mean not being able to gather in large numbers at all.

But protests can mean so much more than gathering in groups and marching in the streets. We engage in protest when we sign a petition, when we engage in a boycott or when we go on strike. And of course, like in all other aspects of our lives this year, in 2020 we adapted to new ways of protest. Activists are creative people, and around the world this year we have seen activists and communities find new ways of taking a stand so that they could be heard but stay safe at the same time. We saw virtual marches instead of in-person ones. We saw coordinated action on social media, socially distant banner drops and virtual walkouts from people working from home.

It is worth keeping in mind while we debate this motion that while we all have the right to protest, and it is a right that absolutely must be protected, there may be times when we have to change the way we exercise that right in order to protect our community. But this does not mean the government can use the fear of disease as a means of suppressing inconvenient protests. The Greens believe that protests must be allowed to proceed except when there is a real and substantial risk to safety and that restrictions on the grounds of public health must be kept to a minimum. We will always defend the right of people to protest peacefully and will oppose any use of heavy-handed policing or law and order tactics to suppress that right. But we acknowledge that in the very worst of a crisis, like a public health crisis, there may be necessary restrictions on the ability of people to gather in large groups, or mandatory protective measures like face masks and social distancing.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:40): I rise today to support Mr Quilty’s notice of motion 456 in relation to the freedom of assembly. I do so having also put a notice on the agenda, motion 396, which refers to very similar aspects to those that Mr Quilty is raising. Unlike my colleague Dr Bach I have been involved in protests and assemblies, and I was very pleased to support the Save the Brumbies groups that came to this place at the very beginning of the virus outbreak. They were heavily restricted in how they could voice their opinion, and they complied with all the rules and regulations of keeping distance and numbers to 10; the second one was 20, I think. However, I was disturbed that the very next day after the brumby supporters had only been allowed to have 20 people on the steps of Parliament House the Black Lives Matter protest was allowed to have thousands. On that occasion there was clear inconsistency with how one group was treated, and I think Mr Limbrick and Mr Quilty have highlighted the inconsistencies of this position.

Public assembly is fundamental to a properly functioning democracy, and political freedom does not begin and end at the ballot box. Allowing citizens to express political discontent—even if it is against the Premier and some draconian lockdown rules and regulations that we have experienced—including by means of public presence at a place or in a procession, should be the central duty of the state. Even when specific catastrophic circumstances arise, including public health crises, this duty does not simply disappear. Any restrictions must be limited, proportionate, frequently reviewed and actively mitigated.

Our widely drawn public health orders recently gave the government great power, but they must understand that failing to act in a transparent and proportionate manner fatally undermines the public trust which democracy requires. Controlling free assembly and political expression may be legal under emergency powers, it may be convenient politically, but abuse of it will fatally undermine the democratic covenant which underpins our society—nor does it dispel the impression that our Premier believes he and his cabal know best and that outside and opposing voices must be, by definition, wrong.

I think it is vitally important that we allow free speech in the form of protest, if that is what we will call it. Peaceful assembly and demonstration complying with certain regulations, possibly, are vitally important in this democracy, in this country and in a liberal democratic society. We cannot infringe on other people’s space and other people’s rights, but certainly we do have to ensure that this right is maintained. It is critical to how we operate in the state of Victoria. I am pleased to support Mr Quilty’s motion, and I hope it succeeds.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:45): I rise to contribute to this debate. I will not be contributing for a long time, given that a lot of people would like to voice their opinion as well, which is their right of expression. This motion put up by Mr Quilty talks about the right of political assembly and general broader human rights. This is perhaps appropriate because tomorrow, 10 December 2020, it is international Human Rights Day.

The crossbench and other people have spoken about some countries under communism and dictatorships and the lack of freedom there. I can say that I have lived and experienced life and suffered in such a country. I bet my life, and I value very much, appreciate and understand the value of human rights. I bet my life by jumping on a boat and leaving that country behind. I am here to talk about rights. At certain times I am upset about some people who are hypocritical in talking about certain things and using only one side of the argument just to support their view without giving consideration to others.

First of all, in our state we have the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It protects many, many rights, including the rights of freedom of expression, of political assembly and of freedom of association. We understand that, particularly in the labour movement, arising from the Eureka rebellion—the Eureka protests—in the 1800s. It has given rise to democracy in our country, Australia. Protest, association and assembly play a very important part in our social, economic and political life, and they have inspired the social changes that we all enjoy today, compared to other countries under dictatorships and communism. We have never taken those rights for granted.

The argument is put forward as if those rights have been taken away during this state of emergency, which is not the case. We, in order to have the rights, have to have the responsibilities—the responsibility to observe the rights of those other than ourselves. We still have the right to protest and to criticise within the law, but now we have a situation arising where there can be harm to others, particularly where physical bodies gathering in certain places can cause damage to health and costs to society when people get infected and are hospitalised. The damage may be longer term or, even worse, people may never recover from the infection.

To take an example, just today I received some information from the United States, as we all have. Particularly in many states in the US, ICU beds in hospitals have reached their maximum number. For example, in California the number of beds they have is 2000, and they have reached that and the projection is they will require up to 10 000—five times the capacity they have. And not until April 2021 will that number dip below their 2000 capacity of ICU beds. So given such a situation we have the right, and this scheme maintains certain aspects of the right. The right to protest does not mean that we have to be there on the street and cause damage to others. We can still voice our opinions. We can still go onto Facebook, criticise Dan Andrews, criticise the government—or support Dan Andrews because we came out of the second wave successfully and not many countries in the world could do that, and I do not have to quote an example to remind our colleagues here in this chamber.

Now, with the situation getting better we are cautiously moving out of restrictions, and of course certain restrictions have been lifted. We have now allowed up to 100 people in a public place because of ventilation and because the physical distancing can be observed, and even more so if necessary at sporting events and protests even, provided we have a procedure and a process and a system for people to apply which can be judged by experts. It can be considered, for the protection of others, whether it can go ahead or not.

So just to bring up a one-sided view and to exaggerate the situation, particularly, for example, for the coalition, it is not too difficult to dig out the Hansard to find out that when the coalition was in government the then Attorney-General, Robert Clark, and the government at that time had been undermining the charter of human rights—

A member: At every opportunity.

Dr KIEU: at every opportunity, thank you—including being very critical of and attacking the LGBTI movement. Now it is too hypocritical to talk about protecting the right to expression of different minorities and of different cohorts, because their actions did not go with their words.

Just to sum up, these are rights we all recognise and we all value and the rights are there for us, but also we have to observe the rights of other people and we have responsibility for other people’s rights and their wellbeing as well. We cannot just think about ourselves, be one-sided and then demand the right to protest be a legitimate reason to leave home in future pandemics.

The pandemic is the transmission of disease that is unrelenting in this community and very damaging. The only way which has been proven to prevent that, particularly in our state and in our country, that I have seen is the separation and the restriction of movement until we have a vaccine. Even when we have a vaccine, it will take weeks for the immunity to be built up in our bodies. It will take about three or maybe four weeks. This is not something that is guaranteed, and in the meantime without such a weapon, such a medical facility, we need to be cautious. That has been the case. This is not a permanent thing, so do not compare what we have been doing with communism or dictatorship.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16:54): My contribution to this debate shall not be extraordinarily lengthy. These are strange times we live in, not just here but around the world. Not too long ago politics saw the election of a reality TV personality as a president, who some describe as the most dangerous man in the world, and his subsequent refusal to accept the will of the people; catastrophes, such as bushfires and volcanoes erupting; and now me agreeing with some things that Mr Quilty is proposing. I am glad you are all sitting down, because I would not want to be responsible for a mass fainting event. But, as I said, some things. The fact is, the majority of this motion I wholeheartedly agree with. I agree that the right to protest is essential. As a trade unionist, how could I not? The most fundamental rights won for workers have piggybacked off the largest demonstrations this country has ever seen, all of them union rallies. I even agree that public health restrictions have curtailed that ability to organise and demonstrate. And that is the key phrase. Mr Quilty has torn down his own argument by recognising in his motion that the only reason they were restricted was that we faced a public health emergency, one that by need, not by want, meant that these gatherings that had the potential to infect even larger numbers of the population, given how contagious the virus is, had to be stopped from occurring. There simply was no reasonable way at that point.

That brings me to point (2)(c). I cannot, given the science and the advice of epidemiologists and of the chief health officer, agree with a motion that allows a known high-risk event to take place when the spread of a deadly, communicable virus is the whole reason for those restrictions existing in the first place. To do so would not be rational or responsible. I note that the restrictions at this point have now been eased and allow for larger gatherings in public. But it is reasonable that should a future event occur that requires the same restrictions to protect public health we do not prevent that step from being able to be taken through a legislated roadblock. Therefore I cannot support the motion.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:57): It has been a really interesting discussion today, and I know it stirs a lot of emotion in people because we do value our liberty and our freedom and our human rights and fundamentally believe in democracy for all the right reasons. And it is only—and I speak further to the point that has been reiterated here—because of a life-threatening pandemic that we have had to adapt. And we have had to adapt not permanently but for a period of time to make sure we could protect each other.

I agree with Tien. It is not just about Nina and her rights; it is about protecting my mum, protecting everyone in this chamber, protecting all the constituents and looking out for everyone’s health. If it was just about me, I could just stand here on my rights and say, ‘Yes, yes; me, me, me. I’m the only one that matters. It’s my rights, my rights’. But then in doing so, what if I put other people at risk? I would have to live with that; that is on my conscience. And knowing the medical advice that we had and that we continue to get and wanting to adhere to that advice, thinking of others, the best advice was that to honour each other and for all our sakes the best thing to do was to respect social distancing and to wear masks—as uncomfortable, hot and annoying as they may be—because that was our best possible mechanism for getting this pandemic under control in Victoria. If there was an alternative, sure as eggs we would have taken it. If there was this magic pudding out there, we would have embraced it. Okay, so he is a medical expert. I am afraid I am taking the chief health officer’s advice on this. I am happy to defer to medical experts on this because I am not going to be so arrogant as to say that I know better than those medical experts.

At the end of the day it is about a public health issue. It is not about trying to erode people’s rights. It is about protecting public health for a period of time until such time as we have an effective vaccine. And so at the end of the day I think we have to honour that, because I was elected to protect and to honour my constituents and to serve the community, and how do I serve the community if I am only thinking of myself? That is just not good enough. That is the bar that I set for myself. I am not saying other people have to have that same bar, but that is the bar I set for myself: how can I best serve the community? I can best serve the community by honouring their health and protecting their outcomes in the long term. And that is at the end of the day what has driven these measures.

So, as I say, it is not any desire on anyone’s part—of the Premier, of cabinet, of the chief health officer—to erode those very sacred human rights. We absolutely respect them. It is simply to adapt during an unprecedented time in our history. Who would have thought a year ago that we were going to go through a pandemic and that we would have to wear masks? And actually they have been statistically proven to be effective in helping, and it does make sense. It makes sense in stopping literally—I think I heard Professor Allen Cheng comment, and I am paraphrasing here—the splattery stuff, all the—

Ms Shing: Microdroplets and aerosols.

Ms TAYLOR: That is right. That is a much nicer way of saying it. But it is good common sense, isn’t it—when you sneeze, not sneezing over your neighbour? That sits quite well with me actually. If a little piece of material is going to help interfere with that and help prevent someone else becoming unwell or potentially dying or potentially having long-term ramifications, as we are seeing in the US and as we are seeing around the world, then I think it is worth it and I am happy to make that compromise. I am happy to wear a mask and I am happy to socially distance and do what we need to do to honour others.

And I too found it detestable to make comparisons to dictatorships and otherwise. I felt that that was manipulative language, and I think it also underestimated the true suffering of those who have lived through dictatorships and who have lived through political circumstances where their rights have been truly eroded. Now, I am not saying—and may I put the caveat here—it was easy. We all know it was full on, and we will never forget just how difficult it has been—and I am not saying even for me personally. We know how it has hit people in the community—no-one is resiling from that—because it is a normal part of the human condition to want to connect with others, to want to give them a hug. You know, that is just human, that is just normal and that is about who we are as people. But at the end of the day not doing so is a good temporary measure, because if it means that it prevents my mother going to hospital I am very happy with that. I can live with that at the end of the day, and this was the motivation behind me wanting to adhere to the directions from the chief health officer and the directions from—

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: Yes, the directions from the chief health officer. Sorry, I am getting a little bit distracted there because it is quite an emotive issue, isn’t it? But at the end of the day—

Ms Symes: Talk to Nazih.

Ms TAYLOR: I will talk to Nazih; that is a good idea. At the end of the day we did what absolutely was the right thing to do, and we are continuing to do so because we know that the pandemic is not over. What we are seeing in the US is just absolutely frightening, and I am not exaggerating in any sense. We know the predictions that we had here had we not taken the measures that were so very necessary to be able to protect fellow Victorians. So at the end of the day I think we have to bring this back to a pandemic, to honouring the health of others and to thinking of the collective and the greater betterment of our community as a whole.

House divided on motion:

Motion negatived.

Chinese Communist Party

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:10): I move:

That this house does not support the use of doctored fake images of Australian soldiers by the Chinese Communist Party as a continuing campaign attacking Australia’s interests.

I have just a small number of minutes to talk to this, and I think that everyone in this chamber would indicate that they were shocked at the decision of the Chinese communist government to put up a series of doctored images of Australian soldiers in such an appalling way. I do not believe that there is a person in this chamber who would believe that this was an appropriate approach by the government of a major regional power in the form of the Chinese government.

The People’s Republic of China is headed by the Chinese Communist Party, and whatever disputes they may have with Australia and whatever decisions might be made on other matters, the use of fake information of this type—doctored information—is something that we think is reprehensible. All Australians understand that there may well be, because of the reports that have come forth, issues with aspects of the campaign in Afghanistan, but that should not tar every Australian soldier, it should not see every Australian soldier belittled in some way, and I think that we all have pride in our soldiers and have pride in the Australian uniform.

The decision of the Chinese Communist Party to indulge in this sort of misinformation, this sort of appalling attack on Australia, is part of a long line of attacks that has recently occurred—the trade attacks and the decisions to hector Australian interests around the world and to behave in a way that is entirely reprehensible. And I think the Australian community has been very strong in pulling in behind the Australian government, saying in fact that this is not something that we will tolerate and saying that we see our soldiers as people of honour and people of merit. That does not mean that every soldier is beyond reproach or beyond criticism. It does not mean that we will not take seriously the reports that have come from the recent reviews and that appropriate disciplinary action will not be taken in the appropriate circumstances, but it does mean that we will stand up for our forces and we will indicate very clearly that all Australians, all Victorians, are prepared to stand behind our soldiers in a way that is very clear and very much without hesitation.

So I say this is an appalling decision by the Chinese Communist Party to enter an attack on Australian troops and Australians by that means—all Australians—and I think that Australians will recoil from that. I can feel that they are recoiling from that, and I think Scott Morrison spoke cleanly and clearly and sent a message to the Chinese communist government that this is not going to be tolerated by Australia.

Business interrupted pursuant to order of Council earlier this day.

Statements on reports, papers and petitions

Department of Treasury and Finance

Budget papers 2020–21

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:14): I rise to make a short contribution on the budget papers 2020–21. In particular I want to talk about parenting centres, particularly in regional Victoria, and a constituency question that I put to the Minister for Mental Health, James Merlino, on 14 October. In my constituency question I raised the fact that the government had made a recent announcement establishing seven new early parenting centres across Victoria.

Mr Ondarchie: Did you get an answer?

Ms LOVELL: I did get an answer, Mr Ondarchie, but the problem is the answer showed that the minister has a complete tin ear. Here I was saying, ‘You have funded seven new parenting centres, but you haven’t funded them in Shepparton or Mildura, two places that have some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and some of the people who are most disadvantaged in the state, where people really need the support of these early parenting centres’. What the minister actually came back and did was trumpet how much he had invested in those seven early parenting centres, and he also named the locations of them; they are in Bendigo, Geelong, Ballarat, Whittlesea, Wyndham, Casey and Frankston. He went on to say that those centres would service families from Shepparton and Mildura. That means that young people from Shepparton and Mildura who need the assistance of a parenting centre will have to travel to Bendigo—

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: Members, if you want to continue your conversation, you know where to go.

Ms LOVELL: People from Mildura would have to travel to Bendigo or people from Shepparton might, if they did not go to Bendigo, have to go to Whittlesea. It is just not acceptable. The people who use these parenting centres are young people, they are disadvantaged people. They do not necessarily have the resources to get themselves to Bendigo or Whittlesea from Shepparton or to Bendigo from Mildura.

Just to give members an idea of the need for these centres in Shepparton and Mildura, historically it has been the case that the rate of teenage births in regional Victoria has been significantly higher than in metropolitan Melbourne, and this trend has continued over the past few years. But the teenage birthrate in Mildura in 2015 was 21.1 per 1000 women; in Shepparton it was 18.3 per 1000 women; in Melbourne it was only 5.9. In the areas where they have funded these centres, in Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong, the birthrate was lower than it was in Shepparton and Mildura—14.3 births per 1000 women in Ballarat, 13 births per 1000 in Bendigo and 9.8 births per 1000 in Geelong. It just shows that this government is not about investing in services where they are needed most; they are about investing in services where it benefits the Labor Party.

I call on the minister to fund not only parenting centres in both Mildura and Shepparton but also mother and baby units at our hospitals so that we do have the right support not only for young women who have babies but also for all women who are having babies who are struggling at that point in time.

Department of Health and Human Services

No Jab No Play 2020 Review

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:19): I rise to speak to the recent review of no jab, no play. I was pleased to see that the legislation has actually had a positive impact on immunisation rates for one-, two- and five-year-olds here in Victoria. While it is possible that immunisation rates may have gone up without legislation, there have been significant improvements since the introduction of the legislation in 2016. It is also interesting to note that those states without such legislation have low immunisation rates. The target of 95 per cent has been exceeded in both one-year-olds and five-year-olds, and our figures are above the national average for all age groups. However, despite having the largest increase, the target for two-year-olds was not met—it is still just over 93 per cent.

There also has been an increase in immunisation coverage for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. However, again, two-year-olds are below the target. Unfortunately some of the lower socio-economic areas, such as mine in Western Metro, and in both metropolitan and regional areas, still have low vaccination rates and have not reached the target. This unfortunately includes my Brimbank community. More work needs to be done in working with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. More work needs to be done with the CALD communities, and I do not believe that the report really addresses how this could be improved. Any support we provide needs to be tailored to their cultural needs. It will be important to support these communities with integrated health services and adapted healthcare practices tailored to their cultural needs. Specialist health services, such as the Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations and the migrant services organisations, will play an important role in achieving this.

There is also a need to raise awareness of the benefits and the risks of immunisation by educating and supporting the parents and caregivers. Ongoing support and funding are necessary to ensure that these service providers can maintain and support the priority cohorts with immunisation, particularly in the low-coverage areas within Victoria and especially in my Western Metropolitan Region. They need support to complete complex catch-up immunisation, and they also obviously have challenges in record management, which the government needs to address.

I think we need to recognise and congratulate the maternal and child health nurses working through local government who have been responsible for this immunisation. The review makes 10 recommendations, and I hope that the department will make the introduction of these recommendations a priority, especially when it comes to two-year-old children and my Western Metropolitan Region.

Environment and Planning Committee

Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:22): I just wanted to speak briefly on the report on the nuclear prohibition ban inquiry. Certainly what came out of that report is that there is absolutely no reason—no good reason—to lift the ban on nuclear prohibition and that the policy position therefore of the Victorian government is absolutely spot-on and continuing with our renewable revolution is absolutely the way to go. In fact we have put up $1.6 billion—the largest investment in clean energy of any state in the country—with absolute good reason. We have legislated renewable energy targets, which are then an incentive to industry to get on board and get involved—a market sounding, the Victorian renewable energy target too.

We want to invest in offshore wind. Victoria’s biggest battery—the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere—is driving jobs and also driving clean energy and driving down emissions and saving Victorians money. There is the Solar Homes program—a record uptake. People want this; Victorians want this. The Victorian energy upgrades—we know at the end of the day one of the best ways to conserve energy is energy efficiency, and that is why we are investing really, really big. We are going big time on that. And our energy fairness plan is looking after the most vulnerable in our community and making sure that they can afford to access things like good heaters et cetera and not be reliant on those terrible old gas heaters. We are really helping them to upgrade and be part of this and save money in the long run and also drive down emissions.

Mr Finn interjected.

Ms TAYLOR: Here and now. It is happening here and now. Let me go through some of the reasons why we are going forward with our renewable energy revolution, because the economics just do not stack up with the nukes. We know at best that the SMRs are a good decade away. Can you imagine them potted along Port Phillip Bay? Do you think people in Brighton are going to want nuclear energy down there by the bay? I think they would love that! What about on the peninsula? What about in Sandringham? What about Port Melbourne? They would love that!

Members interjecting.

Ms TAYLOR: No, they would not. There is no social licence for nuclear energy in Victoria, and we know that already. Let me talk about cost blowouts. Just to give you an example, I quote:

Peter Farley, a fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia for almost 30 years has commented publicly on some of the practical aspects impacting the nuclear industry’s ability to acquire a social licence …

Funny that! He gave an example here:

As for nuclear the 2,200 MW Plant Vogtle—

sorry, my pronunciation is not great on that—

is costing US$25 billion plus financing costs, insurance and long term waste storage.

…

For the full cost of US$30 billion, we could build 7,000 MW of wind, 7,000 MW of tracking solar, 10,000 MW of rooftop solar, 5,000MW of pumped hydro and 5,000 MW of batteries.

…

That is why nuclear is irrelevant in Australia. It has nothing to do with greenies, it’s just about cost and reliability.

And that is what I never get about those opposite. The people who purport to think about money never think about the market when it comes to energy. It is all about ideology.

Then of course we know that the reason why nuclear does not stand up well when you measure it according to the levelised cost of energy is because the capital costs for set-up are so huge, and that is a fact. And in light of Fukushima, because of the devastating outcome and having to therefore replicate stronger safety upgrades, this has then led to more and more blowouts in terms of cost and in terms of time delays. And we know that the Japanese government is contemplating dumping a million litres of radioactive water into the ocean. So that problem ain’t solved, okay? You wonder why it does not have a social licence; it is because Fukushima is not solved. But you want that. Why would you want that for Victorians? I certainly could not have that on my conscience.

Finally, what I was going to end with is that we do have the data to back this. At the end of the day data is good, isn’t it? Data is good when you are making big decisions about energy. The integrated system plan—and I am talking about the Australian Energy Market Operator ISP—outlined several paths forward for the national energy market, all of which project a significant increase in the proportion of energy provided by renewables. The primary difference between the scenarios is the speed of transition. Under the central scenario of— (Time expired)

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

Report 2019–20

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:28): I would like to rise this afternoon and say a few words on the 2019–20 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning report. There seems to be a bit of an evangelical flavour in respect to reports this afternoon, and I would like to pick a topic that is exactly the opposite of evangelical, insofar as it is a very serious topic, it affects broadly all of Victoria but it certainly is not sexy on the agenda of many. It is having a huge impact on my region and very much on both native species and domestics as well. One of the things in the DELWP report talks about biodiversity, and it lists plants and animals. It goes on to say that loss of habitat and fragmentation, which is an interesting word, is a key driver there, but also weeds and pest animals, and that is where I would like to concentrate my contribution.

The CSIRO recently released a report on Australia-wide species that are under threat. For the 1500 species that are listed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the key driver, the key thing that is putting pressure on these species—it is not climate change up the top, it is not timber up the top; the one thing that is there—is invasive species. It is weeds and pests. They are the most threatening issues in relation to our threatened species. The second on the list of the CSIRO is ecosystem modification through fire. So we have both pests—not a very sexy topic—and fire as being some of the key drivers.

Now, of these incredibly importantly species that are under threat, some of the predative species that attack these are indeed the fox, the feral goat, the feral cat, the feral pig and the mongrel dogs—not the dingoes but the mongrel, mixed-breed dogs. They can certainly cause absolute devastation with our native wildlife, and if you have ever seen the attack of a wild dog on our sheep and lambs it is just horrendous for farmers, certainly up in the northern part of my electorate. Now, for some of these beautiful little species that are under threat, like the Baw Baw frog, possums and the hooded plover, cats and foxes are a major contributor to their endangerment as a species. We really need to tackle this, and I have concerns that DELWP does not put enough direct action toward this.

In relation to DELWP, in terms of staff, apparently this report informs us that DELWP staff across Victoria are in the vicinity of 4500 staff, and might I say that predominantly they hang out in metropolitan Melbourne and surrounds. There is only a small percentage of fantastic people who actually work in the regions, and they do an enormous job tackling some of these predative species.

One other thing that I find quite astounding is that, this being the top issue in terms of invasive species, DELWP only has less than a handful of scientists who are wholly and solely in charge of mitigating invasive pest species. I just find that bizarre—4500 staff, the biggest issue across the state in terms of predation and vulnerable species, and yet we have got less than a handful of scientists that are directly employed by DELWP. So I think that they should really do some renewal on this. Maybe turf out some people who are doing diversity policies or inclusion policies or whatever the water fountain policy is, but really look at putting it where it is going to maximise the benefit for vulnerable species across the state. One little example: in Narbethong, up there in central eastern Victoria—

A member interjected.

Ms BATH: a great little place—there is a pest worm that is devastating the eucalypts in the area. Now, they skeletonise the leaves. They basically come and infest them, and I understand that at the moment the scientists have not got a clue what to do. Now, rather than putting money into a whole raft of things that do not need to be looked at, these are some of the key issues we should be looking at.

Department of Premier and Cabinet

Report 2019–20

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:33): I would like to make a statement on the Department of Premier and Cabinet report from the last financial year. The reason I would like to speak on this is that that is where the Department of Veterans’ Affairs lie. I would like to compliment the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, particularly for the work they do with ex-service organisations around a series of grants and also some new initiatives. As I mentioned recently, the Veteran Central initiative between the government, the RSL and Legacy has been a great success. One of those successes is a returned soldier that spent 10 years at his parents’ home and felt trapped there. He made a phone call to this number and a lot of people actually got around him and got him back out of the house and back into society and feeling a lot better about himself. So I think there is one great win there.

There was a lot of discussion last week around the welfare services that some ex-service organisations may provide for veterans—how good they are or are not. But I think everyone has got to bear in mind that veterans welfare is the responsibility of the federal government and has been for over 100 years. I am not being political when I am critical of the services, as far as welfare goes, that veterans receive in Victoria and across the country, because the Productivity Commission identified that it is not a fit-for-purpose system that is the best for the welfare of veterans. As I said, this is not political, because, from my research, 100 years ago there was a committee that looked into the services of veterans affairs federally.

There were quotes that, ‘A digger should be supported if a digger needs welfare’. I have spoken to many veterans, many groups where—and in fairness it is not across the board—many veterans and many family members of veterans feel really let down by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

There are a couple of young women. One young woman lost her husband. He returned from a tour of duty and died of a brain tumour two months later. Two months later their first and only daughter was born. She told me it has felt like her soul has been ripped out for three years trying to get support from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Her husband’s squad was in an area where there was that much radiation where they were overseas that their torches turned on without them switching them on, and they gave affidavits to that fact. But she did not get the support. I know a young woman who lost her partner. He unfortunately took his own life because he wanted support with a shoulder injury and just could not get it.

It is just not a fit-for-purpose system, and it needs to be fixed. My suggestion is: why don’t we just believe? As the starting point, when it comes to welfare, why don’t we just believe veterans or their families when they ask for support? Their feeling is that much money gets spent on not believing them, with all sorts of hearings and lawyers. You know, we could probably save money if the starting point was to actually believe that veteran or their family member that is asking for some sort of welfare support.

They should be supported, and the problem with the system is it comes under three acts. There are three different acts. The story I had was of a young veteran who had lost his arm and a leg in a tour of duty, a young man. His friend tried to get him assistance at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to move house, because he was moving to a house that was more applicable to his disability. When they rang up, the computer said no. If he had come under this act instead of the other act, he might have got support.

So this is an area I think that veterans are going to be more and more vocal about. It is a system that, as I said, the federal government’s own Productivity Commission report says is not fit for purpose. It has not been fit for purpose for a long, long time, and my simple suggestion is we should change the system and amalgamate the acts. The starting point is maybe just believe veterans and their family when they reach out to get welfare, and all the money spent stopping them getting welfare could go towards their support. The system might even find that it saves some money, but I will have more to say on this in the future.

Environment and Planning Committee

Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:38): This afternoon I rise to speak on the Environment and Planning Committee’s report on the inquiry into nuclear prohibition, and firstly I would like to thank the rest of the committee, particularly the outgoing chair, Mr Melhem, and the extraordinary work done by the secretariat staff and Hansard. If ever there was a good argument for more funding and resources, it could be made here given how hard they worked on this inquiry.

Now, it is not my intent to pull apart the report chapter by chapter but rather to highlight what I believe are some missed opportunities. The first of these is that the substantive report is not definitive in its overall findings or recommendations. Whilst there was considerable effort in the deliberations stage to make unequivocal statements, in large part these were watered down because a view was expressed that the committee should not come to a position of opinion. I do not agree with this and believe it is the committee’s task to do exactly that: to examine an issue, make findings on significant questions and then make recommendations on a course of action for government to either implement or not, as the case may be. Despite Victoria having a prohibition, no recommendation was made that definitively stated we should not engage in a nuclear power industry, and amendments to make such recommendations were voted down in the interests of creating a so-called balanced report that did not strike a full position. The public expects that committee inquiries investigate and make findings and recommendations that inform government policy through the public hearing process.

I am also of the opinion that far too much mention was given to the fact that a business case could not be conducted in Victoria because of a federal prohibition. This was mentioned in almost every chapter of the report, and as a result readers of the report with no previous opinion may be swayed to believe that this barrier should be removed as a default position. In short, by weight of mention, the report could be used by federal government to demonstrate that the barriers they have in place should be removed to allow a business case to be mounted—one that would be likely heavily flawed in economic, safety and environmental arguments by proponents as was demonstrated by expert witnesses to the inquiry who were able to disprove those claims made by industry and supportive organisations.

It is also worth mentioning the difference between organisations that were supportive and those that were not. Some of those in support made claims to be independent—to be think tanks or formed on another basis entirely but to have turned their attention to nuclear energy generation to make so-called unbiased observations and give advice based on that. In fact they were largely formed by proponents of nuclear energy with a clear agenda of promotion and simply undertook work to produce outcomes that verified this stance. Their opponents, however, were by contrast quite transparent about their distaste for the industry and came from highly regarded NGOs, doctors and economic experts. They made no false claims to have an unbiased viewpoint or to altruism.

In summary, I believe that the inquiry process revealed that the prohibition should remain, based on findings that prove nuclear power generation was astronomically expensive and is astronomically expensive and unsafe to both worker and public health as well as the environment. I believe that the report should have made strong, definitive recommendations to do what I believe is the purpose of a committee and be a reliable and unequivocal reference for government to inform policy direction.

Victims of crime

Community petition

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (17:42): I rise to speak on the petition I tabled yesterday following the stalking-related murder three weeks ago of 23-year-old Celeste Manno at her Mernda home. Celeste’s death is another devastating case among far too many recently in Victoria of a woman taken absolutely senselessly from our society. This beautiful, vivacious young woman should be alive today spending time with her family, boyfriend and other friends. Instead her mother sadly had to lay her to daughter to rest last week. This is something that no parent should ever have to endure.

Unfortunately I do not have long to speak today, so I need at this point to acknowledge Naciye Erel, one of Celeste’s friends, for starting and working so incredibly hard on this petition, especially at such a difficult time. Naciye, you should be incredibly proud of the significant impact you have already generated, including in helping to initiate discussions between Celeste’s family, the government and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party on the reform and better enforcement of stalking laws. These kinds of conversations are crucial because there simply must be a strengthening of Victoria’s response to the mounting prevalence and increasingly brazen nature and traumatising impact of stalking in our state.

On that note I want to say how honoured and humbled I have been over recent days to talk in detail to Celeste’s mother, Aggie, and Celeste’s brother Alessandro. Their love for Celeste and their strength in such horrendous circumstances is extraordinary. I also must sincerely thank the Premier’s office as well as the Attorney-General and her staff in their interactions with us and with Aggie and Alessandro in recent days. Very sadly there has been a steady upward incline of the criminal offences of stalking over a number of years. As the petition expresses with clarity and the backing of over 8000 people, we have to do better, and we must escalate the consequences for those who deliberately taunt, follow and inflict harm on others.

Bills

Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Bill 2020

Royal assent

The PRESIDENT (17:45): Members, a message from the Governor:

The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments:

44/2020 Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Quarantine Fees) Act 2020

Adjournment

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:46): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Northern Victoria Region flood mitigation

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:46): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Water and concerns the current condition of levee banks in Northern Victoria. The action I seek from the minister is for her to provide me with an update on what actions she has taken to ensure the levee banks in Northern Victoria will adequately cope with future flood events, including severe rain events forecast for this summer. My electorate of Northern Victoria Region has been subject to many severe flood events over the course of history, and as the minister would be aware, the Murray River is the northern border of my electorate and numerous other river systems run throughout it.

The coalition was recently briefed by the emergency management commissioner, Andrew Crisp, and representatives of the emergency services on the emergency outlook for this summer period. The briefing outlined that this year, due to the La Niña weather event, torrential rain and flooding, rather than bushfires, are expected to be our major threat, especially in Northern Victoria. The levee bank system is a major flood mitigation strategy. These pieces of infrastructure protect many communities throughout regional Victoria from the devastating impact of floods. That said, the minister has an obligation to ensure that levee banks are in an adequate condition prior to any flooding event occurring. Therefore it is imperative that the levee banks are inspected now to identify weak spots and that they are reinforced prior to any flood event. Unfortunately this was not the case during the 2016 flood in Northern Victoria when catchment management officers were forced to walk the banks to identify weak spots while the waters were rising. This meant the locals were out on the levee banks sandbagging in dangerous conditions, including at night.

If the information we received at the emergency management briefing is accurate and severe rains and severe inland flooding due to the La Niña weather event are to eventuate, then time is running out to ensure that our levee banks will cope with such extreme rainfall. The minister needs to ensure that all levee banks are inspected immediately and any necessary reinforcement works are undertaken prior to the next flood event.

Heide Museum of Modern Art

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:48): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Creative Industries, the Honourable Danny Pearson in the other place, and my matter relates to the Heide Museum of Modern Art, also known as Heide, which is an art museum in Bulleen in my electorate, the Eastern Metropolitan Region.

Heide was established in 1981, and the museum houses modern and contemporary art across three distinct exhibition buildings and is set within 16 acres of heritage-listed gardens as well as containing a sculpture park. The museum occupies the site of a former dairy farm owned by prominent arts benefactors John and Sunday Reed. After purchasing the farm in 1934 they named it Heide in reference to the Heidelberg School, an impressionist art movement that developed in nearby Heidelberg in the 1880s. Heide became a gathering place for a collective of young modern painters known as the Heide Circle, which included Sidney Nolan, John Perceval, Albert Tucker and Joy Hester, who often stayed with the Reeds.

So in terms of my request to the minister, of course the COVID pandemic has been something that has impacted creatives and art galleries alike, and I invite the minister to come with me and view Heide’s work and how they are recovering and regenerating their business there but also encouraging people to come back to Heide to view art in a local area. I am sure the minister will be pleased to hear of Heide’s plans for the recovery post pandemic and their plans for expansion as well.

Sentencing reform

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (17:50): My question is to the Attorney-General. It is my belief that when sentencing offenders the options available to magistrates are too limited. Recidivist offenders are prevalent in all crimes, from shop theft to family violence. It seems alcohol and drugs continue to play a part in their offending, and it is well documented that many of the rehabilitation programs they participate in are not effective or even are not attended in some cases.

It is therefore not surprising to see fantastic results abroad relating to sobriety concepts, where alcohol and other drug, or AOD, offenders are sentenced to sobriety for a period of time. In one concept in South Dakota they monitor this by requiring the offender to attend the police station twice in one day, 12 hours apart, to be breath-tested. Though extremely infrequent, any positive breath test results in the offender spending just one night in the cells. A second positive test result in two nights in the cells. A third results in a judicial review. In the UK two successful trials of SCRAM continuous alcohol monitoring bracelets have encouraged the UK government to roll them out nationwide. These bracelets work by analysing the offender’s sweat every 30 minutes and sending the results back to a lab.

These two examples are based on an approach called ‘swift, certain and fair’. The reaction to offensive behaviour is swift because it happens as soon as the offence takes place, it is certain because the offender knows what the result of non-compliance is—and will be—and it is fair because it is not a punitive punishment. What is surprising is just how amazing the results have been. In South Dakota their 24/7 sobriety program resulted in a 9 per cent reduction in family violence offences, and alcohol-related car deaths declined by 33 per cent just 12 months after the program was introduced.

For perspective on compliance, one study assessed 24/7 sobriety and found that its 46 000 offenders who undertook twice-daily alcohol breath-testing—a total of 9.62 million times—had a pass rate of 99.06 per cent. This 99 per cent refers to the offender showing up on time and completing a clean test. Therefore the action I seek is for the Attorney-General to provide any research or information that has been undertaken with regard to utilising a swift, certain and fair approach to sentencing AOD recidivist offenders.

Kealba landfill

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (17:52): I wish to raise a matter this evening for the attention of the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and I have to say that I am heartily sick of raising these issues with the minister and the situation not improving one little bit. This is yet another environmental disaster that is occurring in the western suburbs and severely impacting local residents and those who work nearby. I refer to an article just this week in the Brimbank Leader by Rebecca DiNuzzo. It starts off:

The stench of burning rubbish from Kealba tip—which one resident has likened to “dead bodies”—is so bad homeowners as far away as St Albans say it is making them sick.

The fire at the tip—run by Barro Group—has been burning for more than a year, and with summer approaching, fed up residents say they’re taking the fight against the multi million-dollar company into their own hands.

Kealba mum Siobhan Brister said she was dreading the warmer months because she predicted the smell—which she likened to “dead bodies”—would get worse.

…

St Albans resident Nicole Power erected a sign on her fence this week urging people to lodge complaints about the tip to the EPA.

And there lies the problem in itself, because the EPA is one of the most useless organisations on the face of the earth. Anybody who lodges a complaint with the EPA might as well just open the window and throw a piece of paper out, because it is just a total waste of time.

Minister, the EPA has let down the western suburbs now for close to generations. It is staggering what is going on in the west. The situation at the Kealba landfill, the tip there, is just as bad if not worse than we have up at Ravenhall and we have at Bulla with the great mountain, which they are now calling Mount Bulla. It is just appalling what is going on right across the western suburbs of Melbourne. What I am asking the minister to do is to take responsibility, to take this thing by the horns and to put this fire out—to do whatever is necessary to get this fire out. It has been burning for over a year. The minister needs to get this fire out and to stop the stench. I mean, I am sure she would not want this in Mill Park, where she lives. I am sure she would not. Certainly the people in Kealba and nearby do not want it where they are. So I am asking the minister, begging the minister—I will get down on my knees and plead with the minister if I absolutely have to—to do her job, to get the EPA onto the job and to fix this stinking mess in Kealba.

Melton rail services

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:55): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place, and the action that I seek is a committed time line from the state government to deliver the electrification of the Melton line by 2026 and to deliver two new stations at Hopkins Road and Paynes Road, which were identified by the state government in the precinct structure plans. The Western Rail Plan is a significant priority for the City of Melton. We are concerned to see it left out of this state budget, especially following the announcement of the Suburban Rail Loop and the Melbourne Airport link as well as the Geelong fast rail. We would like a reassurance that these projects will not come at a cost to providing additional and much-needed metropolitan rail services to Melton.

It is essential that the electrification of the Melton line is delivered in the very near future. Three-quarters of the workers in the City of Melton travel outside the area, and our population in Melton is set to grow over the next 30 years. Road congestion is already a massive problem, and residents are looking for efficient ways to get to work and access education and health services. Melton does not have tertiary or TAFE facilities or family violence services or an abundance of local jobs, so they need access. The Melton line will service high-traffic areas now and in the future, including the western state-significant industrial precinct, the future Melton hospital and the location of the future western freight terminal. Having electrified rail will support private investments and a diverse mix of jobs for the outer west, which is vital for Melton’s future. I seek assurance that the electrification of the Melton line must remain on track, and I urge the state government to include it in the 2021–22 budget and deliver it by 2026. They cannot ignore this any longer.

Schools funding

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:58): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Education and concerns a challenging new report from Centre for Independent Studies education specialist Glenn Fahey entitled Dollars and Sense: Time for Smart Reform of Australian School Funding. The work makes an eloquent and academically rigorous case for reconsidering the assumptions behind education funding today. While the resource going into the system has never been higher, the desired outcome, educational attainment, has stalled nationally and by international comparisons it is falling. We must not dismiss this counterintuitive finding. That would permit continued wasteful government spending and would fail to achieve the better educational standards which improve children’s life chances individually and maintain Australia’s competitiveness internationally.

The root cause is the finding that beyond a certain point there is no correlation between more resources and higher educational standards. In particular, two goals of recent years—increasing teacher salaries and reducing class sizes—have actually done little to improve standards. The report shows that teacher salaries have increased substantially and are relatively high by international standards. More challengingly, it demonstrates smaller classes do not necessarily mean better results. Instead, the laser focus must be to improve teachers themselves. A good teacher with a class of 20, it seems, is better than a poor teacher with a class of 15. So resources should be redirected. A modest increase to class sizes of just one additional student could save around $1.4 billion. This money could expand access to teaching, create more routes to training and support training within schools. In subject, skill or geographical shortage areas, demand-based salaries would improve numbers applying. Greater access and targeted reward would increase applications for the profession and create quality through competition.

Management matters too. By moving away from an obsession with uniform higher salaries and ever-smaller classes, schools could instead target their resources on performance management, financial incentives and career development. Currently the salary structure is almost flat. There is no way to reward good teaching. Conversely, there is little ability to challenge, not retain or dismiss poor teachers. The principal could inform not just teaching salaries but school funding as a whole. Funding therefore could be more closely tied to schools’ performance. The action I seek from the minister is a commitment to consider these important conclusions and provide an explanation of the innovative approaches his department will introduce to address the absurd diminishing returns from additional needs-based funding.

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (18:01): My adjournment debate item is for the attention of the Attorney-General. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission is meant to be a guardian of human rights for our state. Throughout the year they have occasionally attempted to explain how various restrictions put in place by our government do not violate any human rights. One could be mistaken for believing that the VEOHRC believes lockdowns, 5-kilometre restrictions, 25-kilometre restrictions, mandatory face masks, 8.00 pm curfews, 9.00 pm curfews, worker permits, no visitors, 1-hour outdoor time, 2-hour outdoor time, heavy fines, bans on protests, kettling tactics, police drones, closure of small businesses, restrictions on industries, closure of schools and bans on recreational activities are all perfectly reasonable and proportionate responses to the pandemic and are the least restrictive of human rights. I cannot say I am convinced at all.

The issues of proportionality and least restrictiveness are things that I have looked at extensively and I am sceptical about, but that is beside the point. I am more interested in the VEOHRC’s process for reviewing these directions. I assume this process would be much the same for all directions put in place, and therefore my request to the Attorney-General is to make publicly available, one, the information provided to the VEOHRC regarding the public health directions issued under the state of emergency and their relationship to human rights and, two, feedback provided at the time from the VEOHRC regarding human rights concerns around these directions.

Cooper Street, Epping

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (18:02): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, and it concerns Cooper Street, Epping, that services Pacific Epping, the Northern Hospital and the industrial area of Miller Street. Cooper Street was listed by the AAMI crash index as one of the worst locations for car crashes in Australia for accidents. As the population of Epping grows, the traffic is going to get more and more difficult to navigate. In order to accommodate our increasing population and the subsequent increased volume of traffic, a solution to Cooper Street is urgently needed because the present situation is absolutely intolerable. The action I seek from the minister is to direct the Department of Transport, formerly known as VicRoads, to investigate the light sequencing and safety at the intersection of Cooper Street and the entrance to the Northern Hospital and the intersection of Miller Street and Cooper Street to provide a much safer passage for our road users so the locals of Epping can get home safely.

COVID-19

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (18:03): My matter this evening is for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in her capacity as the minister now responsible for the hotel quarantine system. Last night in the debate on the bill that passed the chamber to facilitate the charging of a fee-for-service for hotel quarantine I asked the Minister for Training and Skills in committee whether the use of robots in the quarantine hotels had been examined or considered. Her answer was no. My adjournment request of the minister for police, Minister Neville, is that she give consideration to the use of robot technology.

I understand the quarantine hotels already have a mix of security arrangements. The coalition is pleased that Victoria Police will be part of that mix, that the ADF will have a role and of course CCTV will have a role. From my investigations robots can also play a role and they have a benefit over CCTV in that robots can measure the temperature of people. They can move up and down floors. They can move up and down hallways. They can ask simple questions, collate data, and also the vision that the robots have can be seen by someone in a control room.

Of course notwithstanding improvements in CCTV technology, robots, by being able to move and interact with a person, can obtain better data than CCTV can. Obviously all Victorians want the revised hotel quarantine system to work. We should avail ourselves of all possible technologies to ensure that occurs, coupled with Victoria Police, the ADF and others. I understand or I am advised that robots were used recently in quarantine processes for the US Open, so they have operated in the US and other similar jurisdictions. So the action I seek is that the minister ask her department to give consideration to this new technology as part of the hotel quarantine program.

Following matter incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 15 September:

Youth justice system

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria)

My matter is for the Minister for Youth Justice.

It relates to her media release of 16 September in which she announced the commencement of a pilot program through which youth justice detainees would be, quote, ‘taught how to manage conflict and interpersonal relationships in custody’.

I appreciate that it’s probably too early to be asking for detailed information about how that program is or isn’t working so far—although I would greatly welcome the minister’s reflections on that if she is prepared to provide them.

Instead, for the moment, I want to direct my attention to the merits of youth justice measures and programs more broadly.

That is sparked by two elements, in particular, of the September media release. Namely, these are the comments that $45.5 million was spent in the 2019–20 budget on various youth justice initiatives and that $18 million has been spent on the youth crime prevention grants program since 2016–17.

The Youth Justice Strategic Plan 2020–2030, launched earlier this year, hinted at some changes in this general policy area. However, it’s my understanding, though I’m happy to be corrected on this, that the youth crime prevention grants program is meant to continue until at least the end of 2021.

However, either way, I believe a full version of the YCPG mid-term evaluation report of January 2020, rather than just the executive summary, has still not been released publicly.

Similarly, I am finding it difficult to trace, even from the very recent 2020–21 budget papers, all of the elements of the $45.5 million to which the 16 September media release referred—and, indeed, to what extent reviews and evaluations of that funding have been undertaken as well.

At this point, I should acknowledge that Minister Hutchins and the former youth justice minister, Minister Carroll, and their staff have generally been very good to me in making themselves and information available whenever I ask for it.

However, it is still difficult to understand exactly what is being spent and how, and how effectively, in this part of the portfolio—not least because there often seem to be lots of different measures and programs, including various short-term pilot programs, being trialled.

Given all of that, the action I seek is an indication of what formal reviews and evaluations have been conducted on the youth justice measures in last year’s budget and on the youth crime prevention grants program and where and how members of the public and/or Parliament can access the complete versions of these documents.

Responses

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:06): There were nine adjournment matters raised by MLCs tonight that were directed to eight different ministers, and those ministers will be made aware of these adjournment matters for their response.

I have seven responses to adjournment matters, and one of them includes an answer to Mr Ondarchie from 4 August—

Mr Ondarchie: 128 days ago.

Mr LEANE: Is that 4 August? That may be a bingo, so thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Tomorrow we start at 10 o’clock. The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 6.06 pm.

Written adjournment responses

Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers.

Wednesday, 9 December 2020

Melbourne medically supervised injecting facility

In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (4 August 2020)

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):

The Victorian Government continues to look to the evidence and work in partnership with local community members, affected and at-risk communities, health experts and others to ensure that the medically supervised injecting room trial is achieving its objectives.

The Department of Health and Human Services has engaged former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay AO, APM to lead and oversee a public consultation process to inform advice to government on the final site selection, and actions to support amenity and safety.

Mr Lay is working with health and drug reform experts to analyse data and evidence on drug harms within the City of Melbourne and oversee a community engagement process, seeking the views of all interested parties.

The Government has a strong commitment to listening to the voices of the community and other key stakeholders on this issue. To date, Mr Lay has met with 97 stakeholders, gauging the views of health and drug reform experts and institutional representatives such as Victoria Police and Ambulance Victoria, and relevant resident and business representatives.

The Victorian Government will continue to work with the community, Victoria Police, the City of Melbourne, health and community services to confirm the second site and to ensure that measures are put in place to support the wellbeing, safety and amenity of the local community.

COVID-19

In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14 October 2020)

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):

Since March 2020, the Department of Health and Human services has published up to date information and data sets to enable Victorian’s act and stay safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We currently publish a range of products on our data dashboard including:

• Public exposure sites and testing locations updated on the website 24/7 and regular social media posts, supporting individual action for Victorian’s to stay safe and to get tested.

• A daily case numbers tweet that has reached over 1.17 million people.

• A case numbers dashboard that shows new, active and total cases by post-code and local government area, new and active cases over time, mode of acquisition over time and age and gender of active and total cases.

• A healthcare worker dashboard that shows total cases, cases by occupation and setting and healthcare worker cases over time.

• Testing data by local government area.

• Contact tracing statistics updated weekly.

• A wastewater testing map and data table.

All data is available from: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/latest-news-and-data-coronavirus-covid-19.

The department also provides additional data sets to help build understanding of Victoria’s COVID-19 response, the disease and sources of transmission. This datasets include all current active and historic cases by location, age-group and source of acquisition and are available on the main data dashboard page: https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/victorian-coronavirus-covid-19-data.

The data published daily in the Chief Health Officer release is the same as the data published on the website data dashboard each day. This release includes the most recent data from the preceding day. Retrospective data can be accessed via the dashboard which presents data that is accurate back through time, including adjustments made as a result of cases reclassified.

COVID-19

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (15 October 2020)

Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):

The matters you have raised fall within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Community Sport.

Horseracing

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (29 October 2020)

Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):

The specific matters that you have raised fall under the governing bodies of thoroughbred and harness racing in New South Wales (NSW) as they relate to alleged breaches of the NSW Rules of Racing and NSW Rules of Harness Racing.

However, I can confirm that the Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that the Victorian racing industry treats all animals with care and promotes the welfare of racing animals both during their career and in retirement.

Racing Victoria (RV) is the governing body of thoroughbred racing in Victoria. In November 2019, RV announced $25 million funding to accelerate its Equine Welfare Strategic Plan (the plan). The accelerated plan is dedicated to the welfare of Victorian thoroughbred horses and has an immediate focus on their wellbeing after racing. Under this plan:

• a new council has been established, with a specific focus on animal welfare

• re-homing networks will be expanded, taking advantage of existing infrastructure to support retired thoroughbreds to transition into second careers or forever homes

• further career opportunities will be identified for thoroughbreds who have retired from racing (e.g. pony club, show jumping, etc.)

• a new foster program will be established to provide short to medium term support for thoroughbreds in need

• RV will establish a new humane ‘on farm’ euthanasia program to be administered by registered veterinarians and available for thoroughbreds where there is no alternative

• RV will provide support for a national responsible breeding campaign which will be led by Racing Australia and Thoroughbred Breeders Australia.

The Victorian Government is also co-leading the development of a national horse traceability register, which will improve biosecurity arrangements and substantially improve transparency at all stages of a horse’s racing career. A working group established to inform the design of the register held its first meeting on 30 October 2020.

I thank the Member for the Western Victoria Region for raising this important matter.

COVID-19

In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (29 October 2020)

Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality):

The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of all Victorians, which is why Safer Care Victoria are leading a review into the use of the blood glucose devices in the COVID-19 hotel accommodation. Lancet devices used in some hotels may have led to a low risk of transmission of blood borne viruses to Residents of the COVID-19 hotel accommodation.

Residents who have been identified as at-risk are undergoing the appropriate counselling and have been offered testing and follow up through one of our state’s leading health services. Those from interstate have been referred to their local GP or health services for follow up.

Further to this, all residents classified as not-at-risk from the review will be contacted as a precaution advising them of the potential risk if they have had a blood glucose level measured during their stay.

The Victorian Government will provide formal advice based on the outcomes at the completion of this review to all jurisdictions. Initial advice has already been provided via the Communicable Disease Network of Australia to all jurisdictions. Safer Care Victoria have raised a safety alert to inform the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Primary Care Networks, the Victorian aged care sector and interjurisdictional quality and safety authorities of this issue.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)

Mr PAKULA (Keysborough—Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Racing):

Victoria’s aviation sector plays a central role in driving the state’s economic and social prosperity. The impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry is unprecedented with expectations that the aviation sector will not recover to 2019 levels until 2024.

During this period of reduced aviation activity, the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions (DJPR) has actively engaged with airlines and airports to understand the impacts of COVID-19 on the industry and to plan for recovery.

DJPR met with representatives from businesses groups within Moorabbin Airport on four occasions between August and November 2020. Through these discussions DJPR has committed to continuing engagement with representatives from the general aviation sector in order to understand current issues impacting the industry and to provide support, where appropriate, to overcome these issues.

Given a national response is required to address the impact of COVID-19, the Commonwealth Government has provided extensive support to the aviation sector to the value of at least $1.6 billion through industry-wide funding and rebate programs including $715 million for the Australian Airline Financial Relief Package, $100 million for the Regional Airlines Funding Assistance program, $198 million for the Regional Air Network Assistance package, and over $669 million for the International Freight Assistance Mechanism.

While the Commonwealth Government is leading the national response, the Victorian Government has supported Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the sector through a number of support programs. General aviation businesses have been encouraged to apply for the Business Support Fund and to utilise the programs and initiatives made available by the Victorian Government through the Business Financial Support page on the Business Victoria website. As at 7 December 2020, 100 small Victorian aerospace and aviation businesses have received a total of 171 individual grants through the Business Support Fund.

As we look to the future, the Victorian Government is working to promote our aviation capabilities in training, maintenance and repair, airport infrastructure, safety, and engineering, building upon Australia’s reputation for excellence in aviation, to retain existing jobs and create new opportunities as the sector recovers.

West Gate Tunnel

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10 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 Western Metropolitan Region for his question and his continuing interest in the Andrews Labor Government’s Big Build agenda.

Like all civil construction projects in Victoria, the West Gate Tunnel Project (WGTP) contractor has arrangements in place with operators of licensed landfill sites across Melbourne and Victoria to dispose of different types of soil. These licensed landfill sites are also accepting material of this nature from other construction projects.

Regarding the disposal of soil excavated by the WGTP’s two Tunnel Boring Machines, no decision has been made on a site where this soil will be stored.