Legislative Council Hansard - Thursday 10 December 2020
Legislative Council Hansard
Thursday 10 December 2020

Thursday, 10 December 2020

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 10.06 am and read the prayer.

Announcements

Acknowledgement of country

The PRESIDENT (10:06): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament.

Petitions

Following petitions presented to house:

Public land management

Legislative Council Electronic Petition

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the need to establish a Parliamentary inquiry into public land management.

The inquiry should investigate:

(1) why the policy of changing public land into parks and reserves has failed to deliver the promised environmental improvement, economic benefits and social outcomes; and

(2) why several recommendations of the Bushfires Royal Commission and the Environment and Natural Resources Committee’s Inquiry into Public Land Management Practices on Bushfires in Victoria have not been implemented, especially those that relate to the lack of adequate fuel reduction burning; and

(3) the effects of current public land management policies on the extent and severity of bushfires, on the environment and adjoining private property.

The Committee should make recommendations to the Government, which should include the:

(1) establishment of a new public land advisory body to replace the narrow focus of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council. The new advisory body would include representation of recreational and commercial users of public land and the Country Fire Authority; and

(2) the creation of a modern management system that allows for recreational and resource use of public land whilst maintaining environmental safeguards.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council establish an inquiry into public land management and provide recommendations to the Government in a final report.

By Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (967 signatures).

Laid on table.

Bush nursing centres

Legislative Council Electronic Petition

The Petition of certain citizens of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the Legislative Council the lack of funding and certainty provided to the 14 bush nursing centres across Victoria by the Andrews Labor Government. Bush nursing centres provide significant contributions and support to remote Victorian communities. In particular, the Buchan, Cann Valley, Dargo, Gelantipy, Swifts Creek and Walwa bush nursing centres played an enormous role in the recent devastating bushfires including acting as a relief centre, providing hundreds of meals for firefighters, undertaking welfare checks and provision of primary and emergency care.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Council call on the Government to recognise the increase in operational costs and demands that Victoria’s bush nursing centres constantly face and to immediately and properly resource bush nursing centres.

By Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (213 signatures).

Laid on table.

Bills

Drugs and Criminal Procedure Legislation Amendment (Diversion Reform) Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:08): I move to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to provide for the use and possession of small quantities of drugs to be dealt with through diversion programs and for other purposes, and I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Mr LIMBRICK: I move:

That the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

Emergency Management Victoria

Partnerships Victoria Mobile Data Network Contract Extension

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (10:09): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of Emergency Management Victoria’s Partnerships Victoria Mobile Data Network Contract Extension project summary, December 2019.

Motion agreed to.

Victoria Law Foundation

Report 2019–20

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (10:10): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of the Victorian Law Foundation report 2019–20.

Motion agreed to.

Visit Victoria

Report 2019–20

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (10:10): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of the Visit Victoria Limited report 2019–20.

Motion agreed to.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

2019–20 Sustainability Fund Activities Report

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (10:10): I move, by leave:

That there be laid before this house a copy of the 2019–20 Sustainability Fund Activities Report.

Motion agreed to.

Committees

Integrity and Oversight Committee

Inquiry into the Performance of Victorian Integrity Agencies 2017/18–2018/19

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:11): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table the report on the inquiry into the performance of Victorian integrity agencies 2017–18 and 2018–19, including an appendix. I further present transcripts of evidence, and I move:

That the transcripts of evidence do lie on the table and the report be published.

Motion agreed to.

Ms SHING: I move:

That the Council take note of the report.

In doing so I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge the contributions of fellow members of the committee, who have worked hard in an exceptional and unexpected year insofar as the way in which the business of this committee has been done, the way in which engagement with integrity bodies and agencies has been conducted and the way in which we have in fact managed to overcome significant challenges in order to acquit the responsibilities of the Integrity and Oversight Committee. In this regard I want to acknowledge the work of the chair, Mr Steve McGhie, the member for Melton, and the deputy chair, Mr Brad Rowswell of Sandringham. I also want to pay tribute to Mr Rowswell’s exceptional COVID hair, which in fact took on a remarkable volume over the course of the lockdown but did not detract from the comments and assistance that he gave to the committee. To Mr Grimley, Mr Halse and Mr Taylor and to the Honourable Mr Wells from the other place, again, thank you for all of the work which we as a committee managed to do in a collegiate and cooperative way despite our differences on a number of matters contained within the report and the subject of investigation, evidence, review, oversight and reporting of the various integrity bodies.

I also, however, and perhaps more germanely to the work of the committee than the elected membership that I have just outlined, want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the secretariat and the teams which sit behind them in developing process to enable access, the clear provision of information, the dispatch of questions taken on notice and information provided after hearings and the way in which the operations behind the scenes were managed so seamlessly in preparation for the tabling of this report.

I note that Sean Coley, the committee manager; Dr Stephen James, the senior research officer; Tracey Chung, the research officer; Katherine Murtagh, the research assistant; Sarah Catherall, the committee administrative officer; Maria Marasco, committee administrative officer; and Bernadette Pendergast, committee administrative officer, have in fact done a power of good work. Our thanks as a committee go to them for all that they have done to assist us.

We have in the course of this report, as outlined in the document, undertaken a review of the performance of IBAC, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the Victorian Inspectorate and the Victorian Ombudsman, including through examination of the annual reports for this relevant period and including through the way in which questions on notice have been provided and public hearings have been undertaken. The details of the report do in fact establish a greater level of transparency and detail in the provision of information to this committee, which has in fact facilitated a fulsome examination of their functions as the Integrity and Oversight Committee takes on the responsibility for monitoring and reviewing the performance of duties and functions of these four integrity agencies.

The report itself makes a series of recommendations in relation to the addition of prominent drop-down menus for the anti-corruption commission, in relation to consolidation of public sector body and Victoria Police responses for IBAC, in relation to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner using clear and consistent terminology and in relation to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner providing greater transparency in annual reporting processes.

The Victorian Inspectorate is also the subject of a recommendation as it relates to production and hosting of website information containing targeted and accessible videos explaining its role and functions. The Victorian government is recommended to fund an ongoing communication and publishing officer position at the Victorian Inspectorate. It is also recommended to support the designation of and adequate resourcing of the Victorian Ombudsman as Victoria’s national preventative mechanism.

Finally, recommendation 8 of this report recommends that IBAC publish in its annual report the number of complaints and notifications of corrupt conduct that it received in relation to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner and the Victorian Ombudsman. This is a report which is relevant, which is timely and which makes good use of facilities, which is needed to innovate in the course of an unusual and challenging year. It makes for very good reading, and it makes for such good reading because of the work which has been undertaken behind the scenes.

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (10:16): I rise to make a brief contribution on the report on the performance of the Victorian integrity agencies tabled this day. This report reviews the performance of IBAC, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner (OVIC), the Victorian Inspectorate and the Victorian Ombudsman. This report makes eight recommendations to improve the performance of the agency’s key functions, with particular focus on increasing the accessibility and transparency of information to the public. The report also addresses the committee’s new role regarding the budget independence of the VO, the VI and IBAC. As we have seen recently in this place, the funding of the integrity agencies has been identified as a genuine and critical element of the functions and effectiveness of the oversight agencies. It is clearly obvious that without adequate funding and resources these integrity agencies become hamstrung in their ability to fulfil their functions effectively. I trust that future budgetary requests made by the agencies are met in full in the next state budget.

In drafting this report the committee analysed the annual reports of IBAC, OVIC, the VI and the VO of 2017–18 and 2018–19 and considered reports and recommendations relevant to the integrity agencies and oversight committees from previous parliaments. Agencies also responded to questions on notice from the committee.

As a relative newbie to such an integral committee, I would like to thank the chair, Steve McGhie; the deputy chair, Brad Rowswell; Kim Wells; Jackson Taylor; Dustin Halse; and of course Harriet Shing. The committees would not function effectively without the able support and direction of the support staff, and I would like to thank Sean Coley, the manager; Dr Stephen James; and Tracey, Katherine, Sarah, Maria and Bernadette. To all of you I say a big thankyou.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:18):(By leave) I have started to read this report, and I must say I am very concerned with what I have seen. It is very clear that IBAC’s funding is not adequate, and if you read at page 5 here, it says:

IBAC expects its budget for 2019/20 to be fully exhausted and has flagged a reduction in operational activity if budgetary pressures continue to rise.

The Ombudsman and the IBAC must be properly resourced, and I am concerned that this government is deliberately starving them. The commentary on the Victorian Ombudsman on page 7 says:

However, the Ombudsman has highlighted concerns with respect to its funding and advocated for additional resources so it can sustain its current levels of performance.

I think this is very concerning. The community knows that these integrity agencies are the bulwark against corruption. These agencies are the key to prevention of corruption in this state, and I say that they should be properly resourced. Daniel Andrews and his government are seeking to starve these agencies, and they are doing it deliberately because they are investigating the Labor Party.

Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (10:19):(By leave) The first thing to note about the tabling of the Inquiry into the Performance of Victorian Integrity Agencies 2017/18–2018/19 report is that the framework for Victoria’s integrity agencies is really virtually unchanged from that which Ted Baillieu took to the 2010 election. The framework that he outlined to fix John Brumby’s spaghetti junction and incomplete integrity regime has stood the test of time and withstood six years of this government.

As Mr Davis referred to, page 5 of the report is a plea from the IBAC for more funding, page 6 of the report is a plea from the inspectorate for more funding and page 7 is a plea from the Ombudsman for more funding. Now, why would Daniel Andrews starve these integrity bodies of money when he is borrowing billions and billions and billions? He is spending money faster than any Victorian government, but when it comes to just a few million for the integrity bodies, ‘No, no, no, no. We can’t find that’. They can find tens of billions of dollars for a range of different expenditure, but when it comes to giving the IBAC or the inspectorate or the Ombudsman a few million dollars to undertake necessary corruption investigations, the government have turned off the tap. Now, why would they do that? Well, maybe it is because Daniel Andrews and his government are the subject of numerous investigations—numerous ongoing investigations about alleged corruption, alleged inappropriate behaviour within the public service and within the Andrews government. It is a disgrace that these agencies have been starved of funding, and Daniel Andrews should reverse the savage cuts.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (10:21):(By leave) The thing about the opposition is they just make stuff up and they just believe it is real themselves. Every one of those integrity bodies got more funding. If you want to speak about corruption, let us talk about Jim’s Liberal local government candidates. Up there you have got a shire where Jim from Jim’s Mowing is giving heaps of money to attract people. You know, you get your lawn mowed, you look at the receipt and you have signed up as a Liberal candidate for a local government election and you do not even know. So please, please stop coming in here—

Members interjecting.

Mr LEANE: You are only talking amongst yourselves. No-one is listening to you. No-one has listened to you all year. You are only talking to yourselves. And if you want to be outraged, angry, sad, whatever you want to be, suit yourselves. Suit yourselves, because you got an absolute smacking in the last election, and the way you are tracking now you are going to cop another smacking. You cannot make up your mind who you want to lead the party. You have got five members writing emails, sooking that they are unhappy, and you want your leader to feel your anger: ‘Feel our anger! Please feel it!’. And I wonder if he felt it. We should ask him if he is okay, because he might be really hurt by that. He might be fractured. It would have been, ‘Ow, I felt the anger! They got me right in the guts!’. You people! Please, spare us, spare us. You feel free to speak amongst yourselves. If you want to be sad, angry, whatever you want to be, suit yourselves. We will just keep governing.

Motion agreed to.

Papers

Papers

Tabled by Clerk:

Accident Compensation Conciliation Service—Report, 2019–20.

Administrator of National Health Funding Pool—Victoria State Pool Account—Report, 2019–20.

Adult Parole Board of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Agriculture Victoria Services Pty Ltd—Report, 2019–20.

Albury Wodonga Health—Report, 2019–20.

Alexandra Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Alfred Health—Report, 2019–20.

Alpine Health—Report, 2019–20.

Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council—Report, 2019–20.

Ambulance Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Architects Registration Board of Victoria—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Austin Health—Report, 2019–20.

Australian Grand Prix Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency—Report, 2019–20.

Bairnsdale Regional Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Ballarat General Cemeteries Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Ballarat Health Services—Report, 2019–20.

Barwon Health—Report, 2019–20.

Barwon Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Bass Coast Health—Report, 2019–20.

Beaufort and Skipton Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Beechworth Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Benalla Health—Report, 2019–20.

Bendigo Cemeteries Trust—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Bendigo Health—Report, 2019–20.

Boort District Health—Report, 2019–20.

Calvary Health Care Bethlehem Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Casterton Memorial Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Castlemaine Health—Report, 2019–20.

Central Gippsland Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Central Gippsland Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Central Highlands Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Climate Change Act 2017—Victorian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, 2018, under section 52 of the Act.

Cohuna District Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Colac Area Health—Report, 2019–20.

Coliban Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Commercial Passenger Vehicle Commission—Report, 2019–20.

Commission for Children and Young People—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Act 2003—

Victorian Government response to the State of the Environment 2018 report.

Victorian Government response to the State of the Yarra and its Parklands 2018 report.

Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Confiscation Act 1997—Asset Confiscation Operations Report, 2019–20.

Consumer Affairs Victoria—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Consumer Policy Research Centre—Report, 2019–20.

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Coronial Council of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Corryong Health—Report, 2019–20.

Country Fire Authority (CFA)—Report, 2019–20.

Crimes (Assumed Identities) Act 2004—Report, 2019–20, under section 31 by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

Dairy Food Safety Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Dental Health Services Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Dhelkunya Dja Land Management Board—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Disability Services Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Djerriwarrh Health Services—Report, 2019–20.

East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

East Gippsland Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

East Grampians Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

East Wimmera Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Echuca Regional Health—Report, 2019–20.

Edenhope and District Memorial Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Emerald Tourist Railway Board—Report, 2019–20.

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA)—Report, 2019–20.

Energy Safe Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA)—Report, 2019–20.

Essential Services Commission—Report, 2019–20.

Fed Square Pty Ltd—Report, 2019–20.

Forensic Leave Panel—Report, 2019–20.

Game Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Geelong Cemeteries Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Geelong Performing Arts Centre Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Geoffrey Gardiner Dairy Foundation Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Gippsland and Southern Rural Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Gippsland Southern Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Goulburn Valley Health (GV Health)—Report, 2019–20.

Goulburn Valley Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Corporation (GWM Water)—Report, 2019–20.

Great Ocean Road Health—Report, 2019–20.

Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Greyhound Racing Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Harness Racing Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Health Complaints Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Health Purchasing Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Heathcote Health—Report, 2019–20.

Heritage Council of Victoria—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Hesse Rural Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Heywood Rural Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Infrastructure Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Inglewood and Districts Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Kardinia Park Stadium Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Kerang District Health—Report, 2019–20.

Kooweerup Regional Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Kyabram District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Labour Hire Licensing Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Latrobe Regional Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Latrobe Valley Mine Rehabilitation Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Legal Practitioners’ Liability Committee—Report, 2019–20.

Legal Services Council and Commissioner for Uniform Legal Services Regulation—Report, 2019–20.

Loddon Mallee Waste and Resource Recovery Group—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Lower Murray Urban and Rural Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Maldon Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Mallee Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Mallee Track Health and Community Service—Report, 2019–20.

Mansfield District Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Maryborough District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust—Report, 2019–20.

Melbourne Market Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Mental Health Complaints Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Mental Health Tribunal—Report, 2019–20.

Mercy Hospitals Victoria Ltd—Report, 2019–20.

Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB)—Report, 2019–20.

Mildura Cemetery Trust—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Moyne Health Services—Report, 2019–20.

Murray Valley Wine Grape Industry Development Committee—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Nathalia Cobram Numurkah (NCN) Health—Report, 2019–20.

North Central Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

North East Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

North East Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

North East Waste and Resource Recovery Group—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Northeast Health Wangaratta—Report, 2019–20.

Northern Health—Report, 2019–20.

Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator—Report, 2019–20.

Office of the Public Advocate—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Omeo District Health—Report, 2019–20.

Orbost Regional Health—Report, 2019–20.

Parks Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Peninsula Health—Report, 2019–20.

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre—Report, 2019–20.

Phillip Island Nature Parks—Report, 2019–20.

Phytogene Pty Ltd—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Portland District Health—Report, 2019–20.

Post Sentence Authority—Report, 2019–20.

PrimeSafe—Report, 2019–20.

Public Interest Monitor—Report, 2019–20.

Queen Elizabeth Centre—Report, 2019–20.

Residential Tenancies Bond Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Robinvale District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Rochester and Elmore District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Royal Botanic Gardens Board Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Royal Women’s Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Rural Northwest Health—Report, 2019–20.

Seymour Health—Report, 2019–20.

South Gippsland Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

South Gippsland Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

South West Healthcare—Report, 2019–20.

Southern Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust—Report, 2019–20.

St Vincent’s Hospital (Melbourne) Limited—Report, 2019–20.

State Electricity Commission of Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

State Sport Centres Trust—Report, 2019–20.

State Trustees Limited—Report, 2019–20.

Surveillance Devices Act 1999—Report, 2019–20 by the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, under section 30L of the Act.

Stawell Regional Health—Report, 2019–20.

Surveyors Registration Board of Victoria—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Sustainability Victoria—Report, 2019–20.

Swan Hill District Health—Report, 2019–20.

Tallangatta Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Terang and Mortlake Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003—Review of the Terrorism (Community Protection) Act 2003—Stage One Report, December 2020, under section 38 of the Act.

The Kilmore and District Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Timboon and District Health Care Service—Report, 2019–20

Tweddle Child and Family Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

V/Line Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

VicForests—Report, 2019–20.

Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal—Report, 2019–20.

Victims of Crime Commissioner—Report, 2019–20.

Victoria Legal Aid—Report, 2019–20.

Victoria State Emergency Service Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victoria’s Mental Health Services—Report, 2019–20, under section 118 of the Mental Health Act 2014.

Victorian Assisted Reproductive Treatment Authority—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

Victorian Building Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Environmental Assessment Council—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Environmental Water Holder—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Victorian Funds Management Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Health Promotion Foundation—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Inspectorate—Report 1 January to 30 June 2020, under section 30Q(3) of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 in relation to agencies authorised to use surveillance devices.

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Legal Services Board and the Legal Services Commissioner—Report, 2019–20 (Ordered to be published).

Victorian Marine and Coastal Council—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Pharmacy Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Planning Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Plantations Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Victorian Strawberry Industry Development Committee—Minister’s report of receipt of the 2019–20 report.

VITS LanguageLoop—Report, 2019–20.

Wannon Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

West Gippsland Healthcare Group—Report, 2019–20.

West Wimmera Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Western District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Western Health—Report, 2019–20.

Western Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Westernport Region Water Corporation—Report, 2019–20.

Wimmera Catchment Management Authority—Report, 2019–20.

Wimmera Health Care Group—Report, 2019–20.

Witness Protection Act 1991—Report, 2019–20, under section 20R by Victoria Police.

Yarram and District Health Service—Report, 2019–20.

Yarrawonga Health—Report, 2019–20.

Yea and District Memorial Hospital—Report, 2019–20.

Youth Parole Board—Report, 2019–20.

Zoological Parks and Gardens Board—Report, 2019–20.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Notices given.

Notices of intention to make statements

Notices given.

Adjournment

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:30): I move:

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 2 February 2021, at a time to be determined by the President, or an earlier or later day and hour to be fixed by the President, and the President will notify members of any changes to the next sitting date.

Motion agreed to.

Committees

Environment and Planning Committee

Membership

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:31): I move, by leave:

That:

(1) Mr Limbrick be discharged from the Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning; and

(2) Dr Cumming be appointed to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Planning.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020

Budget papers 2020–21

Concurrent debate

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (10:31): I move, by leave:

That this house authorises the President to permit the second-reading debate on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 to be taken concurrently with the debate on the motion to take note of the budget papers 2020–21, contingent on such a motion being moved.

Motion agreed to.

Members statements

COVID-19

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:32): Daniel Andrews and his Labor government have let down families and small businesses in Melbourne’s north. Our students have had a tough year, with schools closed in March, reopened in June, closed again in July and opened again in October. Sadly, in August Victoria recorded a 33 per cent rise in young people presenting to emergency departments for intentional self-harm, and GPs are reporting an increase in antidepressant prescriptions for children and young people. Youth unemployment in Victoria now sits at 18.2 per cent. This statistic tells a troubling story about the extent to which COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted young Victorians.

In Melbourne’s north it has been a tough time for families who run small businesses. In October about 8110 small businesses reached out for urgent financial help, compared to New South Wales at 3300. The state budget that needed to deliver jobs, hope and prosperity for Melbourne’s north is sadly lacking. Victoria’s unemployment will be worse than the national average every year for the next four years. Daniel Andrews has let down Melbourne’s north with his failed hotel quarantine and contact tracing. People lost loved ones, and families were not able to meet each other for months.

But there are stories of strength in Melbourne’s north. I want to thank Victoria Police, our wonderful health workers and the fabulous retail staff in Melbourne’s north for their very patient work. I want to thank our volunteer organisations and not-for-profit organisations, which have done some extraordinary things, including delivering food parcels and helping families with their mental health.

Felicitations

Mr ONDARCHIE: Can I, President, on behalf of the Ondarchie family, wish you, all the members of Parliament, our wonderful staff and indeed all Victorians a very safe, happy and holy Christmas time. May God bless you all.

Latrobe Valley youth hub

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:33): I rise today to congratulate and thank everyone associated with the Latrobe Valley youth hub for all of the work that has gone into creating a space which runs programs, provides safe areas for young people to gather and to talk about issues which are relevant to them, and assists more broadly in the transition and development of the Latrobe Valley. It has been really wonderful to see the work that has gone into this particular space, including by the governance council and the assembly comprised of young people, driven by young people for young people with the assistance of organisations including the YMCA, Berry Street and others. I look forward to seeing this new facility take shape in the new year, and I cannot wait to continue to be part of it.

Felicitations

Ms SHING: On another matter, I rise today to wish everyone across the Eastern Victoria Region the very best of wishes for the festive season. It has been a brutally difficult year, in particular in the way in which it relates to bushfires, to droughts and to the pandemic, which cut a swathe through particularly the visitor economy of Gippsland. I cannot wait to see people come together, to spend time with their families and loved ones and to celebrate all of the connectedness, the unity, the support and the care that has gone into making sure that those most vulnerable in our communities have had what they have needed and been in a position to find a listening ear and a cuppa as necessary. I also want to urge everyone to take care on the roads over this summer. We have come so far, and we need to make sure that everyone gets to where they need to be to celebrate in good time and in good health.

Esther Millard

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:35): This place, this Parliament, offers us all some wonderful opportunities, and one of the best of them is the parliamentary internship program. I have been honoured to participate, and I thank all students who have contributed some excellent reports across a myriad of topics. If what I have seen in my short time here is anything to go by, the future of this state and of this Parliament will be in good hands. In particular I want to pay tribute to the remarkable young woman I had the pleasure of mentoring this year, Esther Millard. Esther compiled a fantastic report, The Track to Transformation: How Regenerative Agriculture and Indigenous Land Management Can Improve the Resilience of Farms in Western Victoria. In the context of new threats from the climate emergency and various damages resulting from inappropriate use, here is a blueprint for government policy to ensure the viability and survival of the land and agriculture. In fact the report is so exceptional I am pleased to say that Esther has won the President’s prize for her work. Congratulations, Esther, for this groundbreaking and timely report.

Felicitations

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:36): I rise to pass on my thanks to all of our amazing staff that Parliament operates under, to thank the Council clerks, who do an amazing job; the committee staff; Hansard for taking out my ums and ahs; the security operators, who just work in the background; IT for when I ring up and say I do not know where to find this or that; the library staff; and in particular the catering staff, who do an amazing job. I would like to make a special mention of Karen Fox, who had been here for all my time in Parliament and is now no longer here. Thank you, Karen, for all your kindness, friendship and conversations, and I am sure I echo the thoughts of many with that one.

I would also like to thank my staff, who have done an amazing job. We need to recognise the very diligent work that our staff do. It has been a terrible year, and indeed our staff deal with many constituents who are at a loss over COVID to know what to do and how to go about it, so I thank my staff very dearly for their professionalism, persistence and patience.

I also want to thank all of the constituents of Eastern Victoria Region for their fantastic efforts that they have put in throughout, from the start when we had the fires through to getting on with doing the right thing and getting through COVID, but also acknowledge the amazing volunteers, SES and CFA, and give a special mention too to all of our surf-lifesaving clubs, who do an amazing job in summertime. To all of the people who come to our wonderful Gippsland, be careful on the waterways and be careful in the ocean. Unfortunately accidents can happen.

Felicitations

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:38): As I reflect upon the year that was, I would like to thank the people of the west for their continued contribution in making our community stronger. Like many Victorians, people in the west made significant sacrifices over the last year, and these sacrifices helped us supress the COVID-19 virus. We should be proud of where we are here today and what we have achieved, and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work by the Andrews Labor government, led by our Premier, who actually took the challenge head-on and got us to where we are today. I am very proud to be a member of the Andrews Labor government and a government led by our wonderful Premier. I wish him well. I hope he will have a long and a safe holiday in the next few weeks and come back fully recharged.

Also I would like to give my best wishes to everyone here in the house: all the members, the clerks, attendants, security guards, IT and my electorate officers, who have actually done a wonderful job during the pandemic, led by my office manager, Patricia Giannakos. I am grateful for all the work they have done during that period. I just want to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year, and hopefully we come back to have a prosperous 2021. Stay safe.

Assistance dogs

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (10:39): I rise today to speak about a four-legged employee of the Office of Public Prosecutions in Victoria. Miss Suzy Lucy is a brown Labrador with a knack for supporting victims of crime. She and her handler, Julie Morrison, have achieved truly remarkable results assisting victims in court. Lucy is in great demand and has worked with over 100 witnesses since she joined the OPP. Lucy provides a calming influence, helping victims to deal with what at times can be confronting court experiences. Dogs such as Lucy help survivors to navigate what is at times an imperfect legal system. They are fighting back, and I am here to support them in doing so.

Julie retrieved Lucy from Queensland’s Pups in Prison program run by Assistance Dogs Australia. ADA supports a variety of pup-friendly programs and currently does not receive any government funding. ADA has a program for people living with post-traumatic stress injury, which has had such overwhelming demand that applications have had to close. You could be forgiven for wondering why Victoria is not exploring the possibility of finding more support dogs, and I will certainly be trying to make sure that this is the case. Thanks for your service, Suzy Lucy and Julie, for all your work in supporting victim survivors. And to the state government: you would be barking mad not to consider expanding this ‘pawfect’ program.

Felicitations

Mr GRIMLEY: I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my staff in the office here in Parliament and also down at Torquay for what has been a wonderful and difficult year. Thank you for all you do. And to everybody here in this chamber and to all the support staff: thank you very much, have a safe and happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year.

Felicitations

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10:41): Who would have thought a shortage of toilet paper would have signalled a year like 2020? Indeed, if it was not for the mighty Tigers going back to back in the first grand final away from Melbourne, this is a year that we could readily petition to have cancelled. For many it was a year of tragedy. My heart goes out to the families of those 800-plus people who died as a result of Labor’s second wave. Equally, my sympathy is extended to those families who have lost a loved one as a result of the subsequent lockdown. I wonder if we will ever know exactly how many ended their own lives because of the devastation to their businesses. I am thinking of them particularly this Christmas.

Despite the dreadful year we have endured, I take this opportunity to wish all members and their families a very happy, very safe and, if they are so inclined, a very holy Christmas. A very happy Christmas to the staff of this Parliament and their families. The amazing people who keep this place running deserve the season of peace that is ahead after putting up with some of the ratbaggery that has gone on in here from time to time. To all Victorians, particularly those who live in Melbourne’s west, I wish every joy for Christmas and a much, much better year ahead. They can be assured I will keep fighting for them in 2021.

Felicitations

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:43): I rise to express my appreciation and gratitude to everyone working in the parliamentary precinct. To the staff of Parliament, the clerks, the attendants, Hansard, the papers office, the dining room, security, the cleaners, the committee staff and all the staff in the Department of Parliamentary Services, thank you. Thank you for your care, professional assistance and support and all that you do for us throughout the year, particularly this year, which has posed so many new challenges and where so many new procedures had to be implemented to ensure this place could continue to operate safely during this global pandemic. Without all of your hard work and dedication this place just does not function. I hope that you all enjoy a well-earned break from this place. I am sure that, as much as you love our company, you will surely enjoy a break away from members.

I would also like to thank the residents of South Eastern Metropolitan Region, whom I have the honour and privilege of representing and whose strength and perseverance and camaraderie have been truly inspiring during this difficult year as they have come together to support each other in so many ways.

Thank you to my dedicated and hardworking electorate staff, who have always gone above and beyond to support me and assist me in serving the community that I represent. Their challenges and pressures were only added to by the pandemic, but they persevered and overcame them, and I appreciate all that they do.

To my parliamentary colleagues of all political persuasions and affiliations, thank you for warmly welcoming me back with open arms. I look forward to returning in the new year, when we will no doubt again be in furious agreement or disagreement, as the case may be, after some refreshing time apart.

I would also like to acknowledge all Victorians for their resilience and difficult sacrifices that have got us to where we are today in this fight against this global pandemic. Regardless of how you might be celebrating, I send my best wishes to all Victorians for a safe and festive season and new year.

Northern Victoria Region award recipients

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (10:44): There are some great people achieving great things in my electorate of Northern Victoria, such as Alpine Health’s pulmonary and cardiac exercise and education program, which took home the HESTA excellence award for supporting local patients through the bushfire crisis. Morris of Rutherglen was named Outstanding Wine Producer of the Year and Fortified Wine Producer of the Year at the 2020 International Wine & Spirit Competition in London. Kangaroo Flat Primary School won the Outstanding Inclusive Education Award at the 2020 Victorian Education Excellence Awards for its work in supporting students of all abilities. Swan Hill Primary School received the Outstanding Koorie Education Award. Mallee Accommodation and Support Program won the youth mentoring award from the Youth Affairs Council Victoria.

Felicitations

Ms MAXWELL: I could go on, but I also want to wish everybody in the chamber and all the staff a very merry Christmas and a happy and safe new year, and send a great amount of sincere thankfulness to my staff, who have supported me and my colleague, Mr Grimley, through what has been a horrendous year, with the bushfires, the pandemic and the border closures to name a few. To all the victims out there that I have dealt with, I truly wish for you a very safe and happy new year and look forward to the next year becoming something filled with gratitude.

Wilmot Road Primary School

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10:46): I rise to congratulate the very worthy recipients of the Wilmot Road Primary School Talent, Opportunity, Potential scholarship program—Arman Ali, Levi Hays, Doha Ghadban, Masoumeh Sharifi, Sukhdeep Singh, Zahra Gathban and Sonja Dare—and I would like to make a very special mention of Syma Karimi, who was the recipient of the scholarship that I sponsor, community citizenship. Syma is currently in grade 4 at Wilmot Road, and when she grows up she wants to be an actor or an author, because she loves books. Well done, Syma, and I wish you the very best with your schooling next year. Finally, I would like to congratulate and thank all the other sponsors who make these scholarships possible: the DC and LC Hart Family Trust, Furphy, BM Civil Engineers, Dawes & Vary Riordan lawyers, the Apprenticeship Factory, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and La Trobe University Shepparton campus.

Felicitations

Ms LOVELL: I would also like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a very merry Christmas, and to say a few thankyous as well. I would like to thank my electorate office staff, who have supported me throughout the year and throughout the pandemic. I would like to thank the clerks and their staff for everything they do for us, the library, the table office and the committee staff, the dining room and the kitchen, Parliamentary Services and, President, you and the other members of Parliament. I would also like to wish my constituents in Northern Victoria a very merry Christmas. It has been a very difficult year for us, starting off with bushfires and throughout the pandemic, but we are resilient, and we will bounce back.

Felicitations

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:48): It is lovely to hear all the gratitude in the chamber. It is inspiring. It is good for the soul. I want to thank the constituents of Southern Metropolitan, and in particular all the volunteers for their wonderful efforts that are often unsung year on year. I thank the catering staff; the people who work the beautiful gardens here; the police; security, making sure we have our temperature checked—very important; Hansard—I never provide notes, they are sketchy and terrible, so thank you for putting up with that; cleaning—we know it is more critical than ever, so I really appreciate the fastidiousness of that; IT; the clerks—to dinner or not to dinner, these debates go on and in and out, and they still smile and they still persist, so thank you so much for your patience in that regard; the table office; my wonderful colleagues; family and friends; and of course my electorate office staff as well—Vicki, Peter and Dom, thank you for your patience and for being so supportive with all the inspiration that comes from moment to moment. They tolerate it, and they are wonderfully supportive. I wish everyone a safe and supportive festive season, and I hope to come back for more rigorous debate in 2021. Take care.

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:49): There are many riveting speeches in this place, but on the last sitting day of the year some could be forgiven for letting their mind wander to what they want to do in their holidays. And if you have not decided on your reading material yet, it is your lucky day, because the Liberal Democrats are here with a special recommendation. This suggestion is a real blockbuster, but it seems to have been gathering dust in the parliamentary library.

I am talking about the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. There is something in there for everyone. There are 20 fantastic human rights that actually exist and are supposed to guide the actions and legislation of all public bodies in Victoria. Choosing a favourite one is like choosing a favourite child, but allow me to give a shout-out to section 14, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. And if you thought that was good, wait until you get to sections 15 and 16, the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Truly there is something there for everyone.

Whilst the state of emergency continues, many of these rights have been suppressed. Once you have read this book I hope you will make it your new year’s resolution to return these rights to the people of Victoria.

Ministerial conduct

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:50): I am sorry to end this Kumbaya approach to the year, but I have been particularly interested to observe the obvious inability of most ministers in this chamber to even attempt to answer questions without notice on the portfolios for which they are responsible while representing ministers from the other chamber. I note the contrast in this approach with what occurs in the federal sphere, where ministers competently answer questions on the portfolios for which they are representatives in that chamber of ministers in the other chamber, and I also note former Minister Jennings’s attempts at comprehensive responses to questions outside his direct portfolio of responsibilities. I would hope that in 2021 the ministers in this chamber could get themselves across all the portfolios for which they are responsible so that we can achieve a more fulsome debate.

Felicitations

Mrs McARTHUR: On a nice note, I wish everybody a merry Christmas and best wishes for the new year, and may we all come back full of strident debate, thought, free speech et cetera. Thank you to the staff and to all the people in this place who make our job worthwhile.

Sue Djoneff

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:52): It is my sad duty to inform the chamber of the passing of Sue Djoneff, who was a much-loved member of the Manningham branch of the Labor Party. Sadly, she passed away just recently after battling an illness for much of this year. Sue was a beloved wife to Peter, mother, grandmother, friend and comrade. She was a beautiful person whose kind and gentle nature was apparent to all who met her. She and Peter had been long-time stalwarts of the branch. They were welcome company at every function and branch meeting, always ready to lend a hand and help the Labor cause. Sue will be greatly missed by all who were fortunate enough to have known her. Our thoughts are with Peter and his family at this sad time.

Felicitations

Ms TERPSTRA: I would like to take the opportunity in the time that I have left to wish all members in this chamber a very happy festive season or merry Christmas, however you like to celebrate it. I hope and trust that we will all be looking at a much better 2021. As we all know, this has been a difficult and challenging year. I would also like to thank all of the parliamentary staff who work in this precinct. I always worry that if I deliberately mention someone, I will leave someone else out, so I just want to acknowledge everybody who works in the precinct and thank them for supporting me as a parliamentarian throughout the course of this year and helping me be able to do my job effectively. I would also like to acknowledge my electorate office staff: Sue, Rahn, Ash and Melisa. I cannot do my job without them. They are wonderful staff, and I appreciate all the efforts they have gone to this year.

The Boulevard, Ivanhoe, Christmas lights

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:53): I am of a similar mind and a similar view to Mrs McArthur this morning. I can inform the house that the good people of Ivanhoe have one clear message for new Labor mayor Rick Garotti and his cabal of godless, meddlesome pinkos on Banyule council, and that is: reinstate Christmas. I was very pleased earlier this week to table a very large petition of many residents in Ivanhoe arguing very strongly that the decision of the new Labor mayor—the very first decision of the new Labor mayor—to cancel the famous Boulevard Christmas lights was wrongheaded. The mayor’s office have responded to me, because they did not like the fact that I said the mayor had cancelled Christmas. Technically this is not true. The people of Ivanhoe will be pleased and gratified to learn today that they are still able to go to carols at Christmas—in their own living rooms, via Zoom. That is what Banyule council has on. To take up Ms Terpstra’s point, many people in Ivanhoe do like celebrating Christmas.

There is still time, Mr Garotti, to reinstate the Christmas lights. I was very pleased by the significance of the petition that I was able to table in this place just the other day. I have got an old-fashioned view about councils: they should make sure the bins are collected and look after the roads and the libraries. If this leaves Mr Garotti with some free time, he can always get back to doing what he has been doing over the last few years, and that is branch stacking in Heidelberg for Labor’s corrupt right faction. On an entirely different note, I now very much look forward to hearing from Mr Somyurek.

Members

Mr Somyurek

Personal explanation

The PRESIDENT (10:55): Standing order 12.14 allows a member to make a personal explanation to explain how he or she has been misrepresented or to explain another matter of a personal nature. Our practice is that the member seeks the consent of the President before making a personal explanation, and Mr Somyurek has done so. Personal explanations are relatively rare, so I remind the house of the rulings of previous Presidents that personal explanations should be as brief as possible, contain statements of fact and not engage in argument or go to a difference of opinion. I would also like to remind the house that personal explanations should be heard in silence. The standing order does not permit personal explanations to be debated.

Mr SOMYUREK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:56): The six months or so that I have spent away from this place is the longest period of absence I have had from this chamber since I entered Parliament in 2002. And I have got to say, it is not necessarily true that absence makes the heart grow fonder. I had always intended to sort of reconsider my future at the end of the term. I wanted to do one term as minister; I wanted one term as minister under my belt. The fact that my term as a minister has ended two years early does not overly concern me, but obviously the way that term has ended does concern me.

I have achieved the highest positions possible both through my parliamentary career and in the party. As an ethnic boy from a housing commission estate, I am very happy with my achievements. Even though I will always carry the scars from the betrayal of friends of 25 years, I do admit that it is satisfying that those that have been obsessed with disempowering me of my factional influence have had to resort to a nuclear bomb option rather than through conventional means. To have been factionally outwitted and outmanoeuvred by these halfwits would have been a little bit too hard to digest.

I was hoping that the investigation would be finalised by Christmas so that my return speech would be after the handing down of the IBAC investigation so I could combine my response to the 60 Minutes program with my response to IBAC. However, it seems now there is bit of an impasse, I think; I am not sure why. There might be a bit of a delay. So I think it is best that I do my speech in response to 60 Minutes right here and now.

Whilst I intend to remain in Parliament until the investigation is concluded, given my rapidly diminishing desire to be here I cannot necessarily guarantee it. But then again, I might come back rejuvenated after the holidays. Therefore my contribution today is more than ever written for the purpose of Hansard as a historical record, rebutting that highly biased hatchet job that masqueraded as journalism, and not for political posturing. Do not expect me to hit the right notes like a normal politician on this; this is more of a historic document. And so the contemporary audience will be of secondary importance as far as I am concerned today.

I will try not to break confidence as much as possible, but given the allegations centre on branch stacking, I must delve into ALP factional politics, even though I would prefer not to, for the purpose of context and setting the record straight here today. This should not be interpreted as me trying to pour the bucket on anyone or any group. Perhaps with the exception of Anthony Byrne and Alexandra Stalder, I will try not to use names where applicable.

The audio and the video recordings of me on the 60 Minutes program were conducted by, as I said, my two formerly dear friends, Anthony Byrne, MP, the federal member for Holt, and his chief of staff, Alexandra Stalder. The recordings in question that I will deal with here relate to private telephone conversations between Stalder and me. Someone evil once said with respect to propaganda techniques, ‘Tell a big lie, keep repeating that big lie. No matter how preposterous that lie is, people will eventually believe it’. That is what Nick McKenzie subscribes to.

The 60 Minutes program was premised on several enormous lies. It was a biased hatchet job full of unsubstantiated half-allegations which were not put to me even though I had coffee with Nick McKenzie across the road at the Park Hyatt on the Tuesday morning before the 60 Minutes program went to air on that Sunday. We sat there for 45 minutes; at no stage did he put any of these allegations to me that he raised. There is a good reason why he did not: because all the allegations that he raised—they were not even allegations, they were half-allegations—I could have answered. There was a reasonable explanation for everything, like going to the bank et cetera.

McKenzie did, however, turn up at my house the next day at 8 o’clock in the morning. It was a parliamentary morning. He asked me one question. I invited him to come to Parliament, and said I would answer all his questions here, outside. I did not appreciate him rocking up at my house at 8 o’clock in the morning. I thought, ‘I will answer your questions, mate. Go to Parliament. That is where I am going, and we will talk’. He did not do that; he did not take up my offer.

McKenzie’s lies were important because without these lies he has absolutely no narrative—just recordings of a boofhead MP and minister using terrible, terrible language and offensive language. There is absolutely no doubt that on those recordings alone, which did not need to appear on 60 Minutes—they could have appeared on YouTube or even in the Age, or even transcripts would have been enough provided they were verified—I would have lost my job and I was out. So we have got to take me out of the equation. The recordings alone would have meant that I would have lost my job, but McKenzie would not have had an hour-long 60 Minutes special had he not lied and had he not made up a false narrative. He would merely have had a good story for the Beltway. I am sure the Age the next day would have opined about ‘How did this boofhead get into Parliament?’, ‘How did he become a minister?’ et cetera, and that would have lasted a day or so, but our hero would not have had the 60 Minutes special that he did have and he would not have been able to cause so much destruction.

I understand that the pressures of producing content for 60 Minutes and trying to marry that up with content for the Age may be difficult, but that is absolutely no reason to make up lies and, based on those lies, adopt a narrative which goes down a very, very dark path of dog whistles. For its part, the Age must decide whether it is a 60 Minutes in print or whether it continues to be a serious newspaper with sound journalistic ethics.

What was not a lie, unfortunately, was the unacceptable language that I used and that I was recorded using and which was pejorative to women and gay men and in particular stereotyping of gay men. I have publicly apologised twice for this language. I will accept whatever label is put on the language that I used, but I will not be defined by that language and now I will explain why.

Words and language do matter—they absolutely matter. Language influences thought, which influences behaviour, and this behaviour can then reproduce itself across society and it can reproduce itself across generations, thereby creating an atmosphere to make discriminatory language seem acceptable or normalising it. Words therefore can be used as instruments to denigrate, alienate, delegitimise or oppress social groups and therefore perpetuate discrimination. I said I will not be defined by my bad language because as a person who is from an ethnic cultural minority and from a very, very unpopular religious minority, my guiding principle or philosophy is you have either signed up to and accept Western liberal democracy and all the safeguards that are built into that Western liberal democracy which guards against discrimination, or you have not. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That means that if you are a member of a social group, as I am, that does not appreciate being the target of derogatory language and discrimination then you must always be sensitive to other social groups who are at risk of being discriminated against and oppressed in society, whether that be through patriarchy or whether that be through homophobia or racism.

Growing up in Australia, in particular in the sand belt or the Anglo belt areas, I did experience my share of racism. I do not normally talk about this experience; I have never talked about my experiences. However, the word ‘wog’ was bandied around quite a bit in my day growing up in the 1970s where the White Australia policy had not quite been explicitly lifted. That word makes you feel like a second-class citizen. It demeans, it delegitimises and it does all of this at the same time. I never liked hearing it from my Anglo mates. They would say it sometimes in jest. I would sort of think, ‘Well, am I your mate? Am I your equal or not?’. And I played footy; I was a good footy player. I could catch, I could kick and I could do all those things, so I was part of the boys. In the sand belt they were all Anglo lads, but we did occasionally play teams which were more multicultural. The boys on my side would go around calling the other team ‘wogs’, and I would think, ‘Well, what do you guys think about me really?’. So I understand it from that perspective.

Now, if people are saying ‘false equivalence’, I apologise. Yes, I do not know what it feels like to be a gay man in society. I do not know what it feels like to be a woman in society feeling oppression through patriarchy. I get that. Equally they do not know what it feels like to be an ethnic guy growing up in the 1970s, pretty much in white Australia, and being racially abused too. So let us all have respect for each other and not go down the path of saying ‘false equivalence’.

In making those foolish and offensive comments, I went against my principles and philosophy. Whilst not offsetting my terrible, terrible language, I would hope that my record of supporting women in politics is given some weighting in deciding whether I should be defined by the language I used. In the last round of state preselections I used my influence in the party to preselect six women into Parliament. This record has not been and may never be matched by any faction leader for one round. Furthermore, I also insisted on and supported the first woman state secretary of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party for 40 years. It was the second time only in the Victorian Labor Party’s history that a woman was appointed secretary of the Victorian branch. For people not familiar with Victorian Labor Party processes and structures, the state secretary of the party is essentially the boss of the Victorian branch of the party. While some people pay lip service to women in politics, I am proud to say that I have actually delivered, and no-one can take that away from me.

I therefore take this opportunity to again unequivocally apologise for my use of appalling language. I hope I have demonstrated that my use of language is diametrically opposed to my values. I also take this opportunity to say to those young people grappling with their sexuality that what I said was wrong and that you matter and that you are equal. I speak particularly to those young people working through issues surrounding their sexuality in Victoria’s multicultural communities like the one I grew up in in suburban Melbourne.

The 60 Minutes program was premised on a big, fat lie, and that is that by engaging in industrial-scale branch stacking of fake members—I do not know how that happens, by the way—I had become a kingpin of an organisation that controlled two-thirds of the ALP membership with those fake members. What absolute nonsense this is! Tell a big lie and keep repeating that big lie and no matter how preposterous that lie is people will eventually believe it. And you know what? No-one has taken up Nick McKenzie on this absolutely ridiculous lie, a lie that was very important to his fake narrative: two-thirds of the membership of the Labor Party. There were 17 000 members in the Victorian Labor Party. Two-thirds of that equals about 11 400. That would require 11 400 fake AEC details. That would require 11 400 fake statutory declarations. That would require 11 400 fake primary documents and 11 400 fake secondary documents.

That would also require—because these people are fake, they do not exist and I presume that someone’s got to pay for these fake members—annually about $700 000 to finance. So I am not sure where that money is coming from. IBAC will know just about now how much money I have got, where I have spent it and who gives me money and who has not. And I can tell you that I do not know where you find $700 000. Sure, there are generous—allegedly—property developers around the place, but I think even they would baulk at giving you $700 000 per annum, and apparently they do ask for quid pro quo too.

McKenzie said that there was corruption going to the very heart of this government. If his lies are accurate, this would have to be the biggest political scandal in Australian history—massive electoral frauds, hundreds of people potentially working on, going around creating fake members and primary documents, AEC details et cetera. So of course this never happened.

McKenzie is a liar, and McKenzie I can see in the Age is trying to walk back some of his comments from the 60 Minutes program, but he should be held to account. When the IBAC investigation is handed down in six months time or two months time or whenever it is, we need to judge the 60 Minutes program based on what he said that night, not on what the Age has been saying, not on what he has been writing in the Age. What he said that night—corruption going to the heart of government; referring to me as corrupt on 20 separate occasions—is what Nick McKenzie needs to be judged on. What are the consequences of this man’s lies? Five hundred thousand Victorians are disenfranchised effectively now. Why? Because my vote is tainted. Why is my vote tainted? Because he is going around saying on a national TV program that I was corrupt and there was corruption at the heart of the government. That is why my vote is tainted.

If I was a member of the opposing side taking my vote at the same time, I would be crying foul because the allegations were so severe, and he does not get to walk that back. We have got to hold him to account for what he said on that night, and what he said that night caused the Australian Labor Party’s 17 000 members to be disenfranchised as well. As you would when you have been told that two-thirds of your membership is fake and controlled by one man, what the Premier did was the right thing to do. He suspended the Victorian branch. And now as a consequence you have got people in New South Wales, people in Queensland and people in Western Australia and other states controlling the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. You have got people in New South Wales who ran around with Aldi bags full of cash running the Victorian branch of the Labor Party now. Is that a good outcome?

The Victorian branch of the ALP has been the best-run branch in Australia. It has won five out of the last six state elections, and it has outperformed every other state in terms of federal elections—and that is the key KPI when you are judging a branch. If you have got two-thirds of your membership that is fake and is controlled by one person, you would think that that branch is pretty sick and not able to win any elections, but that is not the experience of the Victorian branch of the ALP. But again, the Premier had no choice in doing what he did. You have to. I mean, the allegations were so extreme that action needed to be taken.

McKenzie also has to be held accountable for not following journalistic ethics by putting allegations to me, including my staff not working and doing factional work. He made these allegations that night. I do not know why he did not put this to me. If I can just say this: anyone who has gone through the red shirts affair would have to be an absolute moron to not insist that their staff come to work; they would have to be a complete moron not to insist on that. I insist that my staff come to work on all occasions. There is absolutely no way they are allowed to not come to work and go and get themselves involved in factional activities. He had visuals of staff—not necessarily my staff, some of my staff—at branch meetings. They were all at 7 o’clock at night. The Australian Labor Party is a voluntary activist party. That means that branch activity is conducted after business hours, on weekends and after 5 or 6 o’clock at night on weekdays. I am entirely comfortable that all of my staff are required to turn up to work.

Going to an ATM—they were good pictures, good visuals. Alexandra Stalder, the person that recorded me, works for Anthony Byrne, and Anthony Byrne’s office—and I will explain why a little bit later on—is the nerve centre of all factional activity in the south-east. His office is the headquarters of the right’s factional activities, and Alexandra Stalder’s job is to make sure that that all run smoothly. From branch meetings to renewal of memberships and everything else, she is responsible for all of that activity. I did not give her that responsibility; that is entirely Anthony Byrne’s job. She is the expert on branch matters. I have not been around for 20 years in the branches, and even then I was not an expert. I will tell you why in a sec.

Alexandra Stalder came to me—surprise, surprise—and said, before the membership forms were due that recruiting had been done in, that she had not collected money or the branch executive had not collected money from the members. She inquired whether she should go and collect money. I said, ‘Absolutely no. We’re in lockdown. I’m a member of the government that is calling for people to stay at home. You’re not going anywhere. You’re not sending anyone to anyone’s house for membership’. I did what I thought was the responsible thing to do since we have got a once-in-100-year pandemic. I said, ‘I’ll get the money from my bank account’—my bank account, no-one else’s. I handed money over, and I said, ‘I’ll get reimbursed when COVID-19 is over, when people collect the money from the members’. That is what I did. I would have thought that was a sensible thing to do, not a reckless thing to do. I could have said to Stalder, ‘Well, I don’t care how you do it. You should’ve collected the money. Go off and get it’. That might have ended in people going to people’s houses during lockdown.

There was also a scene where McKenzie sort of alleged, ‘What you’re about to hear is Adem Somyurek’s voice forcing MPs to take factional people on to branch stack’. What absolute nonsense that is. Let me tell you what happened there. The Socialist Left (SL) had been recruiting a lot of numbers—members. I called in a few south-eastern right MPs in this place in February last year and I gave them a briefing on where the left were putting numbers through, which seats and which branches they were using, and I advised them that they had better monitor these branches to make sure that these branches were actually legit, that they were happening. I said, ‘You either go yourself or send one of your team to these branches’. I said I was not going to. I could not look after their interests; they needed to do that themselves. That is all that was. There are all these half-allegations and insinuations. But why did McKenzie not put these to me? The reason is he knew that there were reasonable explanations for all of them.

Before I counter McKenzie’s highly biased narrative, I will say a few words about my entry into factional politics and my relationship with Anthony Byrne. Byrne was one of the first people I met when I joined the Labor Party in the mid-1990s, and I met Stalder a couple of years later. The right—that is, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA—and the SL were in the middle of a protracted branch-stacking war for the prized seat of Holt. Byrne was stacking for the SDA and Andrews was stacking for the local SL-aligned federal member. Byrne quickly latched onto me like a leech in the hope that I would recruit members, but he soon realised that I really did not have much capacity to do that because I was not that close to my community. He then requested that I begin befriending the Turkish community leaders, who had previously recruited hundreds of members into the Australian Labor Party.

I watched with fascination as Byrne recruited from the Vietnamese community, the Bosnian community, the Albanian community and the Latin American community. He constantly worked the phones, begging, promising seats, support for council, jobs, grants, anything. He would promise anything in order to get the numbers to rock up. Andrews and the SL, for their part, would march in their Latinos, Alawite Turks, Kurds and all varieties of Sri Lankans, Dr Ratnam will be surprised to hear.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Mr Somyurek, if I may redirect you to how you were misrepresented. I think you should stick to the story itself without naming people and calling people liars. Just put the story and how you have been misrepresented. That is the whole issue about it. The Anthony Byrne issue becomes a story, and I think you are going more into the details of the story instead of how you were misrepresented.

Mr Atkinson: On a point of order, President, the basis of a personal explanation to this house is that the member giving that personal explanation is to provide a written copy to the President indicating exactly what he is going to say, to make sure that it is within all of the rules and the confines of the expectations of the house, and you have rightly now addressed that matter. But I ask: has a written copy of this material been presented to you as President? I note that, in the event that it has, Mr Somyurek seems to be off script a considerable amount of the time.

The PRESIDENT: In response to your point of order, Mr Atkinson, there was no written statement provided to me. Mr Somyurek explained to me verbally what he intended to do. That is why I tried to bring him back on track. But according to standing orders he does not need to present to me a written statement.

Mr SOMYUREK: Sorry, President, I did seek guidance on this. I am not trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.

They had the Sri Lankans—Tamils, Burghers, Sinhalese. They really had the Sri Lankan market covered. And they had the Greeks, Lebanese, Serbs, Afghans and rival Bosnians. They seemed to have half the Balkans covered as well. I was fascinated but not impressed. I thought it was all unsustainable. Byrne was at the heart of it and the protagonist in the erosion of the body politic through offering inducements for recruits. There was nothing he would not do and say to get a seat. Byrne’s dream eventually came true with my assistance. Ethnic minorities in the Labor Party—

The PRESIDENT: Mr Somyurek, I understand how you feel in all of this, but I have to stick to what misrepresenting is, and unfortunately you are going over the line now. So, please, come back to how you were misrepresented.

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, President, originally you said that the member should keep it to a short contribution, but I do understand that this is a personal contribution. So if this is his personal account, I feel that he should be allowed to give his personal account. I do understand parliamentary privilege in this chamber, where we have the ability to say others—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I have already given the explanation. I am not going to repeat myself.

Mr SOMYUREK: Sorry, President. Again, I did seek guidance, and I did not get the request to see the final copy. I would have thought that it was pertinent, given how I was misrepresented on 60 Minutes, that I do go through the history of some of these factional relationships, especially from the people who were actually recording me. I would have thought that was highly relevant.

But let me just say this: I think history shows that this particular individual, who was the inferior candidate, won and languished on the back bench for the duration of their 22-year career. The better candidate clearly ended up as Attorney-General of Victoria, and in a strange twist of fate referred me to IBAC. Please note what I am alleging here is not conspiracy but irony. The preselection was a smash-and-grab operation. This gentleman was a low-ranking electorate officer with no formal qualification—

The PRESIDENT: Mr Somyurek, I do not know how to put it. If you want to seek more advice from the Clerk before you continue, I will allow that, because I think you are going back off track, and we need to stay on track. Unfortunately I cannot allow this, so please—

A member interjected.

The PRESIDENT: No further points of order, thank you.

Dr Cumming interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, thank you. Mr Somyurek, there is an understanding here. I know Mr Somyurek is probably very emotional and sometimes goes overboard, but I have to stick with the standing orders.

Mr SOMYUREK: President, I am giving context as to why I have been misrepresented. It is very important context, and I am building to the reason why I have been misrepresented.

The PRESIDENT: The question—I know you have said it a couple of times—is not why you have been misrepresented but how you have been misrepresented. It is how that should be put by you; it is not why. It is how you have been misrepresented, and that is what you need to concentrate on.

Mr SOMYUREK: President, I think we are going to disagree for the remainder of this speech. I would have thought this was highly pertinent to the point I was trying to make. My intention was to rebut the 60 Minutes program, which I think is worth rebutting, but it seems that that is not what your interpretation of the standing orders is.

Mr Atkinson: On a point of order, President, there are some real complications here. There is an IBAC investigation that is continuing. There are people who no doubt IBAC is speaking to. The information that has been provided to this house could not be repeated outside on the steps of this Parliament because it is so defamatory, and arguably it impinges upon some of the current legal matters that are proceeding and investigations that are proceeding. This particular personal explanation is well beyond what we have ever seen in this house in terms of a precedent, and indeed it brings into question a whole lot of people who have been named who do not at this point in time have an opportunity to defend themselves.

Now, the matters of fact that you are seeking for the former minister to respond to in terms of his personal explanation are fair enough. Those matters of fact can be established and are supportive of his concerns about the impact on him as a member and his ability to discharge his duties as a member as a result of very scurrilous media coverage of events, as he would put it. That is fair enough. But he is actually naming people who are not even included in those investigations by the media. He has expanded it dramatically, and as I said, at this point in time those people do not have an opportunity to defend themselves and indeed might also be people of interest to IBAC, in which case that investigation might well be compromised by this very presentation today.

Mr SOMYUREK: On the point of order, President, that is absolute nonsense. I know what I can say with respect to IBAC. I am the person under investigation. I have sought legal advice.

The PRESIDENT: You are going on to debate, Mr Somyurek.

Mr SOMYUREK: I have not even been given a confidentiality order, and I am free to talk about it, President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Somyurek. Again, I have to uphold Mr Atkinson’s point of order, because really you should be concentrating on the 60 Minutes program. Again, it is not why but how you have been misrepresented. It is difficult, but I cannot keep repeating myself. I hope Mr Somyurek will move on from there. Keep to the 60 Minutes program and not why but how you were misrepresented.

Mr SOMYUREK: Anthony Byrne and Alexandra Stalder are the ones that recorded me, surreptitiously, in breach of the Surveillance Devices Act 1999.

The PRESIDENT: No, Mr Somyurek, sorry.

Mr SOMYUREK: Unfortunately I cannot get to where I want to get to, and that is building a case and providing context as to how this particular program misrepresented me, and that is by lying. As I have said before, this particular journalist lied. I do not control two-thirds of the Labor Party’s branch, and I did not engage in industrial-scale branch stacking of fake members. This is an absolutely outrageous, scurrilous lie by Nick McKenzie.

In building a case, I was going to get to certain points, but it sounds like I cannot say more than that, so I am going to have to end my contribution here. But with respect to Anthony Byrne and Alexandra Stalder, my word, they were a key part of it. They breached the Surveillance Devices Act, and without them there would not have been a 60 Minutes program.

Dr Cumming: On a point of order, President, seeing that Mr Somyurek was not able to say what he wished today and seeing that it is normally customary that you can actually table your letter—

The PRESIDENT: It is not, Dr Cumming. I said—

Dr Cumming: Maybe you would like to table it so we could all see it.

The PRESIDENT: I just said before that it is not. It is up to—

Dr Cumming: I just understood, as a point of order, that he was cut short, but if he wishes to table it all, we are happy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have explained myself more than once. Mr Somyurek has verbally told me what he has to do. He does not have to table it. He does not have to do anything. And that is the end of the story.

Business of the house

Notices of motion

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:32): I move:

That the consideration of notices of motion, government business, 403 to 447, be postponed until later this day.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms TIERNEY:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:32): I rise to make some remarks on the 2020–21 budget this morning. It is fair to say that this is the budget where the chickens have come home to roost. We have seen over the last six years budgets delivered by this Treasurer and this government which have been built not on good management but on good luck. But now, in 2020, that luck has run out. We have seen that over the last six years the government has made a number of commitments about its expenditure in the budget, its parameters around the budget, and then it has consistently failed to meet those settings and those parameters.

Until now it has not mattered, because we have had a period of time where this government has had extraordinarily good fortune with windfall revenue. Every revenue forecast this government made over the last five or six years was exceeded when the actual numbers came out. So the fact that it was unable to meet its spending targets and consistently exceeded its spending targets did not matter, because it had all this windfall revenue. But of course that has now changed. Now the economic environment Victoria finds itself in is very different to that which existed for the last five or six years, and now those decisions, the lack of management, the reliance on good luck over good management, are going to have and are having significant consequences for Victoria.

It is worth putting on record a comparison of what the government said it was going to do with what it has actually done over the last five or six years of its period of government. Looking back at historic budgets, picking up from the first budget delivered, the budget update in the 2014–15 financial year, through to the budget update for 2019–20 and to the update delivered at the end of last year—that is, before we saw any impact of COVID, so the pre-COVID period—the government forecast in its own budgets and over its own forward estimates periods that it would collect $348 billion and that it would spend $335 billion.

In reality what we have seen from that period of 2014–15 through to the pre-COVID update in December of last year is it in fact collected $376 billion, so the government had a windfall of more than $28 billion. So $28 billion in unforecast revenue was collected by the Treasury over that period of time, $28 billion which could have gone into reserves, $28 billion which could have gone into infrastructure, $28 billion which could have gone into a sovereign fund, funds available for a rainy day such as the one we have now encountered. But instead of that $28 billion in windfall revenue being accumulated, going into reserves and being saved for a rainy day, we actually saw that and more go into extra spending, because, having forecast spending of $335 billion over that five or six-year period, in fact the government actually spent $367 billion. We saw extra spending of more than $31 billion, $31.5 billion, over that same period of time. So rather than benefiting from the $28 billion windfall of extra revenue, they let spending blow out by $31 billion, which is an extraordinary, extraordinary outcome in a short period of time—to have a windfall of $28 billion and still end up spending more than that. Despite the extra revenue, the surpluses they had forecast went backwards. We had smaller surpluses and much greater spending over that period of time.

One of the things that is unique about this government’s budgets, every single budget brought down by this Treasurer, is that in the budget year they would always forecast there would be a big uptick in spending—that the rate of growth in spending will be significant but then will taper off. ‘We give this commitment that, yes, we will have a growth in spending this year, but we are going to cut it down in the subsequent years’. Now, the reality is that it never happened. Every year the Treasurer brought in a budget he said, ‘Oh yes, spending is going up this year, but we are going to taper it off in the following years’. Each and every year the message was the same, and each and every year it was not achieved. While the government forecast that over the pre-COVID period we would see growth in spending of between 3 per cent and 4 per cent on average over that period from 2014 through to the end of last year, that 3 per cent to 4 per cent forecast actually turned out to be an average of almost 8 per cent in spending growth each and every year up to the end of 2019, before COVID hit.

You have to ask which household in this state has been able to grow its spending by 8 per cent a year each and every year for the last six years, and the answer is none. Victorian household budgets have been under strain for that period. There has not been the wages growth that would allow spending to grow by 8 per cent every year, yet this government has recklessly allowed, each and every year, spending to grow by 8 per cent because they were having windfall revenue. Any household that found itself coming into unexpected windfall revenue, unexpected money, would save it. They would put it aside for a rainy day, but not this government and not this Treasurer. Every extra dollar, and then some more, that the government received, they spent, and as a consequence of spending extra, more than they collected, surpluses were reduced and no reserves were built up. So when we got to 2020 and suddenly we had a massive shock, the capacity was not there to deal with it. There were no reserves to draw upon, and as a consequence we have seen the deficit and the debt profile which has been outlined in the budget we are dealing with today.

It is important to recognise that this trend was already starting before COVID. We had had the massive windfall revenue, we had had the even greater blowout in expenditure, and the revenue picture was already changing. Spending was continuing to grow; revenue was not growing as quickly. In the case of the financial year just finished, 2019–20, even in the pre-COVID period the expected surplus had been downgraded. When the government first forecast a surplus for the 2019–20 financial year they forecast a surplus of $2.5 billion. By last year that $2.5 billion surplus had been cut to a $1 billion surplus. By December last year that surplus had been cut to $600 million. So we have gone, in the space of a couple of years of forecasting the 2019–20 surplus, from $2.5 billion down to $1 billion, down to $600 million. And of course even without COVID, by the time we got to the end of the financial year we would have had a deficit. But COVID changed everything.

We have seen this year the consequences of this government’s failure to manage COVID. We have seen the devastation it has brought to the Victorian community and we have seen the devastation it has brought to the Victorian economy. It is now a matter of record that in March-April we had our first wave of COVID, as did every other state and territory in Australia. We now know that this government, through its botched hotel quarantine program, mismanaged that first wave of COVID. As a consequence Victoria was the only state to have a second wave, and that second wave was far more devastating, far more significant than the first wave, and the impact on our economy, the impact on our community has been enormous.

The government sought to fix that second wave, address that second wave, through some extraordinary mandated shutdowns and destruction of our economy. We had a lockdown which exceeded 100 days, with virtually all businesses mandated to close except for a small list of those which were allowed to stay open. We have heard ad nauseam of the mismanagement of that process as well as the mismanagement of the actual direct COVID response. The devastation wrought by those business closures has been enormous and the damage is deep, and it is going to be long lasting.

In fact the Treasury has, through its estimates of gross state product, quantified the extent of that damage, because last year, as in every year, the Treasury forecast what it expected nominal gross state product to be year by year over the forward estimates period, and this year it did the same. We have updated estimates of gross state product over the forward estimates period, and those estimates show that more than $141 billion in economic activity will be lost from the Victorian economy over the next four years as a consequence of the COVID response. As a consequence of this government’s mismanagement and then as a consequence of this government’s economic lockdown, $141 billion will be lost out of the Victorian economy over the next four years. To put that in context, that is around $62 000 for every household in this state—$62 000 of less economic activity over the next four years for every household across the state. On top of that we have seen 245 000 jobs lost to September, with forecasts from the government that that is going to increase even further by the end of this year and slowly taper off from that.

The impacts of this government’s measures have been devastating. Its failures were devastating, and its subsequent response has been even more devastating to the Victorian economy and to Victorian families. And now we are in a situation of needing a budget to respond to that devastation, and it stands to reason that the budget itself has been decimated as a consequence of those outcomes and those activities of government.

We see that the 2019–20 budget landed on 30 June with a deficit of $6.5 billion versus what had been forecast in December of last year. A $6.5 billion deficit was delivered as a consequence of revenue slumping by $3 billion compared to the budget update forecasts and expenses blowing out by $4 billion as a consequence of decisions taken by this government. Now, some of those relate to the direct public health response; some of them are related to support programs which were provided. So the $600 million planned surplus at the end of last year—in December of last year—has turned around to a $6.5 billion deficit because revenue slumped by $3 billion and expenditure increased by $4 billion.

Now, in circumstances like this, deficit spending is not unusual. Governments around the globe are incurring deficit spending as a response to the downturn from COVID. However, due to the mismanagement we have seen in Victoria the damage here is deeper and the damage is going to be felt longer. We are in an extraordinary situation where the combined deficits being forecast for Victoria over the next four years exceed the total deficits of every other state and territory in the country. Victoria’s deficit is bigger than the rest of every other state and territory combined, and that is not the place that Victoria wants to be. That is not the record that Victoria should have.

There are even questions over just how effective that deficit spending is going to be. We are incurring $49 billion of deficit spending over the next four years, yet the government’s own estimates, prepared by Deloitte Access Economics, suggest that the deficit spending—the decisions made by this government—is only going to contribute $43.9 billion to increase gross state product over the same period. So we are incurring $49 billion in deficit spending to get a little under $44 billion in economic output, and that by any measure is not a good return on that stimulus. Completely contrary to what deficit spending should deliver, it is not going to produce the economic impact that deficit spending should produce.

That is because of where it is being spent. If you dig into the budget papers, you will see that the deficit spending is not all going to stimulatory programs. It is not going to support programs for the Victorian economy. It is not going to support programs for Victorian businesses or for Victorian households. So much of the growth we are seeing in spending in this budget is actually going into public sector wages. We are seeing growth in public sector wages over the forward estimates period of $7 billion—a 27 per cent increase over four years on top of what has already been a substantial increase. So much of the deficit spending is actually staying in the public sector—in running public sector departments. And in fact to the extent that the government claims it is going to claw back some of these deficits in the out years, it is actually cutting the support programs.

Any reduction in spending, if it actually occurs, is going to be through reducing grants and support to business, through grants and support to local government and through buying less from the private sector—fewer contracts for the private sector, fewer purchases from the private sector. So those elements which actually are supposed to stimulate the economy, which are supposed to pump prime the economy, are going to be wound back while internal public sector spending—the public sector wages bill—continues to blow out. And that of course is why we have $49 billion of deficit spending, yet Access Economics forecasts less than $44 billion of economic growth as a consequence of that.

Now, as I said earlier, the government over the last six years had massive windfall revenue and failed to take advantage of it in terms of building capacity and building reserves to deal with shocks like we are currently experiencing. As a consequence of that the government has needed to increase borrowings—increase debt. In order to fund the $49 billion in operating deficits, in order to continue to have an infrastructure program, we are seeing, in the absence of reserves, state debt, net debt, general government net debt forecast to increase to $155 billion by the end of the forward estimates period, which represents a liability for every Victorian household of around $68 000. So, on your behalf, Daniel Andrews is borrowing $68 000 for each and every household in this state, and ultimately that will need to be paid back. What is not clear from this budget is how the government intends to do that. Concerningly, of the $155 billion in debt, or the $110 billion in new borrowings, only around 56 per cent is actually for infrastructure. Almost half of it is for that recurrent spending.

So the concept of borrowing to build, which the Treasurer has talked about and which has been used in past budgets as justification—‘Money is cheap. We can borrow. We can build infrastructure’—is actually not accounting for all the borrowings. It is barely accounting for half the borrowings—56 per cent—and the rest is going into recurrent expenditure. And even on the front of that infrastructure spending it is worth noting the comments which have been made by Standard & Poor’s in their report when they downgraded Victoria’s credit rating this week—which I will come to a little bit later—because in relation to infrastructure spending, Standard & Poor’s made the comment that:

With record levels of infrastructure construction occurring across Australia, we believe there is some risk of cost overruns, skilled labor shortages, and project delays. Capacity constraints mean Victoria may struggle to deliver on its budgeted capital spending. Therefore, our forecasts assume only 85% will be delivered each year.

So, we have a budget predicated on an infrastructure program where even Standard & Poor’s suggest only 85 per cent of it is going to be delivered, noting the constraints in the construction industry given the level of investment in construction. There is no guarantee in taking on this $110 billion of debt that we are even going to get the benefit of it.

It is worth also noting that as a consequence of taking on this $110 billion in additional debt the proportion of debt to the economy in Victoria is now going to far exceed that which was in place during one of our worst economic periods, at the end of the Cain-Kirner years. Because when the Victorian economy was decimated in the early 1990s, when the Kirner government was defeated and the Kennett government came to office and had to make substantial repairs, debt to gross state product in Victoria was 16 per cent. Under this budget it is going to rise to 29 per cent, and that assumes the budget forecasts are achieved—and there is no guarantee that they will be. So the debt position forecast by this government is basically twice as bad as that which was in place at the end of the Cain-Kirner period.

Where does this take us? This budget, like all other budgets of this government, is predicated on winding back spending in the out years. As I said earlier, that has never occurred despite the fact that every time Tim Pallas produces the budget he says, ‘Spending will be higher this year, but we’ll taper it off in the future years’. That has never occurred, and over the life of this government spending growth has been at double the rate the government claimed it would be. So how much confidence can we have in a set of budget numbers which are predicated on spending not only growing at a lower rate next year but actually falling? This government has never been able to maintain even spending growth at the rate that it claimed in the past, yet now it is claiming it is going to be able to reduce outgoings over the forward estimates period to bring the budget not into surplus, I might add, but back to a smaller deficit.

The question is: how believable is that? Based on past experience, it is not. And of course with the government not returning the budget to surplus and needing to continue to build infrastructure, inevitably we will see state debt exceed the $155 billion forecast in the forward estimates period. The downgrade announced by Standard & Poor’s earlier this week, a double cut to the state’s credit rating from AAA back to AA, is going to have consequences for our recurrent budget. Treasury estimated that with a single-step downgrade the cost would be $10 million in extra interest payments. It will be more with the double downgrade. Of course with debt tripling from where it is now, that $10 million will very quickly be $30 million a year and growing beyond that. That starts to have a material impact on spending.

We saw earlier this week the government refuse to support additional spending for IBAC. We saw them refuse to support additional spending for the Ombudsman. The reality is those budget needs of the Ombudsman and IBAC could actually be met by just the increased borrowing costs as a consequence of the credit rating downgrade. So if we had not had that credit rating downgrade and we had not had higher interest costs, we could have actually funded what the IBAC wanted and what the Ombudsman wanted without any other impact on the budget. That highlights the impact and the consequences of higher borrowing costs as a result of the downgraded credit rating.

It is also worth noting that it has an impact on confidence. Australia, globally, is a very small country—1.3 per cent of global economic output. Victoria is a quarter of that, so we are about 0.4 or 0.3 per cent of global economic output. To get the attention of investors—for investors to have confidence in Victoria and in Australia—we need to have a good story to tell. A downgrade in our credit rating from AAA to AA is not a good story for investors. With sovereign wealth funds around the world and other managed funds around the world looking for a safe haven for capital, a downgrade for Victoria is not a good sign for private investment. In the past many funds would look only for AAA-rated destinations. That means Victoria is now excluded. That will have a consequential impact on private investment in this state as well.

Also concerning in this budget is the lack of reform. New South Wales in its budget recognised the difficult environment it is in and the need to propose and drive reform. This budget, the Victorian budget, fails to do that. There are no proposals for reform from Tim Pallas in this budget. There are no proposals even to meet previous savings targets in this budget, which have been set aside, unlike those of other states. There is no path forward, there is no reform agenda and there is no time frame for recovery. And frankly there is no confidence that the forward estimates—the government’s ambitious claim that expenditure will reduce in the out years and the deficit will shrink in the out years—will be achieved, because the government have never met a spending target in previous years. How can we have confidence they will this year?

This budget is a culmination of a number of factors. It is a culmination of this government’s failure to manage the budget properly over the last six years, where it relied on good luck rather than good management to sustain a budget surplus, and it is a culmination of its failure to properly manage the pandemic. These two situations now put Victoria and Victoria’s budget in a perilous situation. We have record deficit spending and we have record debt levels, and we do not have a path forward. The good luck has run out, good management is lacking and we are now in a situation where, as a consequence of the mess which is of the government’s own making, there is not a pathway forward and all Victorians are going to suffer as a consequence of this government’s mismanagement.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

China trade

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, I refer to media reports detailing that abattoirs JBS Brooklyn and Colac’s Australian Lamb Company halted lamb exports to China during Victoria’s second wave as workers became infected. Both meatworks have since restarted operations, and ALC applied to lift the suspension of its Chinese export licence from 14 September, but Chinese authorities have left the companies in the dark and unable to resume that market. Victorian producers exported $1.2 billion of lamb in 2018–19 after a 58 per cent increase in lamb exports to China reportedly driven by increased demand from wealthy consumers wanting the state’s premium product. Minister, do you have estimates of the dollar value likely to be lost by Victorian lamb producers because of the Chinese Communist Party government’s latest outrage regarding Victorian exports?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:01): I thank Mr Davis for his question. These are important issues. Our export market to China is obviously very important, and our farmers, growers and producers rely on this. Through our established networks we have continued to advocate on behalf of Victorian exporters. When it comes to the meat-processing plants that were the crux of Mr Davis’s question, they include the three Victorian meat processors that volunteered to suspend exports in response to COVID detections in their facilities, and the businesses, as Mr Davis has pointed out, have not yet had their market access reinstated.

I understand the commonwealth has made a number of representations to relevant authorities in China regarding this matter. The Victorian government continues to have robust government-to-government contact and trade relations with our contacts in China. In recent weeks, for example, the following have occurred: a meeting between Minister Pakula and the Chinese Consul General, Long Zhou, to represent and advocate on behalf of Victorian businesses; Victoria’s commissioner to China, Brett Stevens, has now met the National Development and Reform Commission on two occasions, the latest in Beijing last week, to raise issues that Victorian exporters are experiencing in China; and Minister Pakula has been in contact with Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, regarding these key Victorian perspectives. These efforts are considered and respectful of all of our trading partners.

We have been closely monitoring this situation with the Chinese government regarding all of our exports. I did attempt to raise this issue at Agmin last Thursday with Minister Littleproud, who unfortunately responded to us state ministers that trade was not a matter for him, which was disappointing.

A member interjected.

Ms SYMES: Shocking! However, I do note that he has recently made comments in the media that he is continuing to raise the recommencement of sheepmeat and beef exports from the facilities with China through his ag counsellors and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials. He says that he remains open to constructive engagement with China and will continue to press for a relisting of the establishments as soon as possible.

Australian Lamb Company’s quotes are quite relevant to your question, Mr Davis. They are saying:

Since this time—

that is, the pause on the exports—

ALC has continued to work closely with various government and industry authorities to advance the process of lifting the voluntary suspension of our licence …

The company has said that China continues to be an important market and it looks forward to being able to resume trade with its valued Chinese customers as soon as possible, and that:

In the meantime ALC continues to market and sell quality products into other markets.

These are evolving issues, Mr Davis, and they continue to get detailed attention from both the federal and state governments, hoping that we can ensure that these lamb and beef exporters have their markets reinstated while also facilitating other export pathways through our investment in the budget.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): Let me in the context of your answer just ask a very simple question. Have you taken steps to invoke the dispute resolution provisions of the Andrews Labor government’s agreements with China—the Belt and Road—and if not, what is the point of these provisions?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:04): I would point out that the federal minister, David Littleproud, has said that he is willing to take China before the World Trade Organization following a string of trade bans against Australian products. In relation to this particular matter, as was in my substantive answer, we continue to work with the federal government, who are taking the lead in this matter. I continue to seek relevant information from Minister Littleproud, and I will continue to do so even though he has not seemed willing to do so.

Timber industry

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:05): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. The code of practice for bushfire management on public land incorporates strategic bushfire management zones on public land. The code for timber production places limits on logging in these bushfire management zones. Community groups provided in August 2020 the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) with breach notices, showing that they have exceeded these limits over a sustained period. Can the minister confirm that VicForests have breached these limits?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:06): I thank Mr Meddick for his question. There are limits on the amount of harvesting that can take place in specific fire management zones (FMZs) to ensure that DELWP can meet their bushfire risk management obligations. In particular this is important where it is near Victorian communities. VicForests are certainly well aware of their regulatory obligations in fire management zones and ensure that all harvesting operations are conducted in accordance with this strict regulatory framework.

I am aware of the allegations environmental groups are making about VicForests’ timber harvesting in FMZs, and these claims are being assessed by the Office of the Conservation Regulator, which is the appropriate course of action. I am also aware that legal action against VicForests on these alleged breaches is underway in the Supreme Court, along with several other legal actions against VicForests, so it should not therefore come as a surprise that it is a little difficult for me to provide too much comment when a matter is before the courts. In relation to the OCR, it might be useful if I can get you some further information from the relevant minister about how those processes work.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:07): I thank the minister for her answer. Minister, if this is still being investigated, why is logging in bushfire zones allowed to continue while the investigation has not yet been completed?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:07): The OCR has not actually identified any breaches, so at this point in time harvest limits are appropriate to be still part of the investigation, and VicForests have not been ordered or asked to cease operations. All alleged breaches will be investigated by the regulator, and if appropriate action needs to be taken, it would have to be proven before you could cease operations.

Ministers statements: apprenticeship trade papers

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:08): I rise today to discuss this government’s commitment to apprentices and the value of an apprenticeship. Members will be aware that in this year’s budget we are investing over $33 million in the Big Build apprenticeship program and almost $20 million in growing apprenticeships. Today, though, I would like to report back to the house on the ongoing measures from the 2018–19 budget that continue to have a positive impact for apprentices.

In 2018–19 the government invested $43 million in quality apprenticeships to drive job opportunities in the modern economy. This included reintroducing trade papers so Victorians who have done the hard yards to complete an apprenticeship can have their trade recognised. It is worth noting that the previous government valued trades so little that they abolished trade papers, taking away an important recognition of achievement. Not only did this government reintroduce trade papers; we made them free. If we are serious about vocational education being valued as much as a university qualification, then we need to give it the status it deserves.

I am pleased to report that so far around 4000 completing apprentices have been issued with trade papers, recognising the important transition from apprentice to tradesperson. I congratulate those 4000 apprentices and say to others completing apprenticeships, and those previously completed without trade papers, that they should apply. It costs nothing, but it gives you something to show your future employers and recognises all the hard work you have done. Display your trade papers. Frame them. Hang them in a place of pride. Be proud, be loud and know that your work is valued by the Andrews Labor government.

Fruit fly

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:10): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture. Minister, Cobram fruitgrowers have written to you dismayed at the direction you are taking with the proposed Victorian fruit fly strategy 2021–25, which proposes to abandon the focus on Queensland fruit fly and concentrate on research and exotic species such as Mediterranean fruit fly. To date the multi-award-winning Goulburn Murray regional fruit fly program has been extremely successful, reducing Queensland fruit fly numbers by 83 per cent in Cobram and 60 per cent across the Goulburn Murray Valley, but there is still work to be done to build on this success. Minister, with funding for the current strategy to expire in July, why have you abandoned a project that has shown such positive results in combating an established pest species in favour of pursuing exotic species of fruit fly?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:10): In Victoria it is very important that we manage our pests in a very responsible way, because it protects our hardworking growers and farmers and indeed our export markets. We need to manage in our state both Queensland fruit fly and exotic fruit fly species to make sure that market access is maintained for commodities such as citrus, table grapes and stone fruit. It is very important that any strategy and any plan that deals with pest management reflects the best way to combat these pests in the coming years and targets our investment where we are going to have the most impact. That is why it is important to review and further target strategies, and that is why we are developing a new fruit fly strategy that will build on the success of the collective effort so far.

There has been stakeholder consultation on a new fruit fly strategy, as Ms Lovell has indicated. This is not finished; it is underway. We have had 150 stakeholders invited to respond to a draft discussion paper, 32 submissions were received during the first six-week written submission period and a virtual consultation was delivered on 19 November to 27 stakeholders. I understand that further consultations are scheduled with individual groups over the coming months, and I will continue to work with important stakeholders like the Cobram fruitgrowers in the development of a new fruit fly strategy.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:12): Minister, the industry has shown a willingness to work with you to fight Queensland fruit fly, and in addition to the $500 000 in state funding that you contribute, each year fruitgrowers contribute around $4.5 million in on-farm work and also run an education program that contributes volunteer hours to the value of $1.4 million to fight Queensland fruit fly. This is an extraordinary commitment because they know the value of the program to our region and, importantly, to maintaining our export markets. Minister, are you aware that you are moving funding from a program that combats an established pest that we must manage to focusing on exotic species and yet there has not been a single sighting of an exotic species of fruit fly in Victoria since 1953?

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:13): Ms Lovell, I think I addressed many of these issues in my answer to your substantive question. This is a process that is currently out for consultation. We have national obligations in relation to pest management. I continue to work with the relevant stakeholders and indeed again encourage the federal government to take biosecurity quite seriously. I have got some quite serious concerns at the moment about their interest in working with the states on this really important issue, but I can assure Ms Lovell and I can assure the stakeholders that I have been up to Cobram, I have met with the growers and I know how important fruit fly management is, and that is why I would encourage everyone to continue to be involved in the consultation process that is currently open.

Fire Rescue Victoria

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:14): My question is for the minister for emergency services. Minister, why have disputes over Fire Rescue Victoria fire station management been allowed to continue into the fire season? CFA volunteers are now unwanted tenants in their own stations, including regional stations in Mildura and Wodonga and many others. They must beg to stay there through tenancy agreements with the United Firefighters Union. Fire season is already upon us, and firefighting operations are already underway. Now is not the time for disputes about station ownership. This should never have been an issue, let alone an issue that disrupts operations during the peak of the fire season. Last year Labor passed legislation to put 34 former CFA stations under the management of the UFU through Fire Rescue Victoria. This was Labor repaying their debts to the UFU at the expense of the CFA and fighting fires in Victoria. The Liberal Democrats voted against these changes last year because we sided with CFA volunteers. We were warned by CFA representatives and members that they did not want these changes and they would impair the CFA’s ability to effectively fight fires. It turns out they were right.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:15): I thank Mr Quilty for his question, and I will refer the matter to the minister for emergency services.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:15): The UFU has made several demands before it signs off on these tenancy agreements. These demands include: volunteers must request permission to use meeting rooms that they have previously had free access to for decades; volunteers must use overflow turnout rooms, as primary turnout rooms will be reserved for UFU firefighters; office space is to be reserved for UFU staff; volunteers may have up to $3000 of office equipment, but they must find their own space for it; CFA volunteers will no longer be allowed to support community not-for-profit groups using station meeting rooms; CFA brigade administration officers will no longer have access to the CFA areas of the station. Minister, was it the government’s plan that the fire service reforms would see CFA volunteers treated like an inconvenience and a burden?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:16): Again I thank Mr Quilty for his supplementary. That matter will also be referred to the minister for emergency services.

Ministers statements: local government funding

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:16): I would like to speak about rural and regional council funding, but before I do that, given the topic, can I take the opportunity to express on behalf of this whole chamber our deepest condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Cr Andrew Goldman from Moira Shire Council, who sadly passed away in tragic circumstances only a few days ago. Also my condolences go to Tim McCurdy, MP, who publicly stated he was a very, very close friend of his. I acknowledge Cr Goldman’s dedication to his local community, and once again we send our condolences to all his close family and friends on this tragic loss.

As far as regional councils go, on the funding increases in the budget, particularly we have maintained, obviously, the roadside weeds and pests program, and that will see each of the 56 councils which deal with over 100 000 kilometres of rural roadsides receive $75 000 each to manage plants and pests. The budget also provides an additional $1 million for the 64 councils in the CFA areas to assist them to undertake emergency management responsibilities, and that will bring that total to $5.6 million for those councils.

Of course councils play a critical role in emergency management, and I cannot acknowledge them enough for the year that they have had, particularly the rural councils that had to deal with the bushfires earlier this year and then they have dealt with COVID and the border closures. It was endless, and they have done a great job. Also we have brought forward $3.8 million to assist rural councils to upgrade their IT to enable them to work remotely and engage with the community remotely, and I know that was much appreciated at the time.

Kindergarten funding

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:18): My question is for the Minister for Early Childhood. Minister, on 10 November the Andrews government announced that kinder would be free to all Victorian children, so I ask: why did it take until 30 November for kindergartens to be advised that free kinder was actually an optional funding scheme?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:18): Thank you, Dr Bach, for the opportunity to talk about this wonderful initiative that has been announced as part of the Andrews government 2020–21 state budget. It is a $169.6 million commitment, and it will save families up to $2000 per year per child. As we announced, you would be aware that there are a number of reasons why this initiative is important in the context of COVID recovery. Not only does this give more children the opportunity for early childhood education, but it also gives women, who have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, more opportunities to enter the workforce and increase their hours.

In terms of the subsidies that will be offered to early childhood services, in sessional kindergarten the average fees range from around $1700 to $2000 per year, and the Andrews government initiative will ensure that the funding that we are providing sessional kindergartens is well above that average threshold. We are very confident that there will be an extremely high take-up of sessional kindergarten programs across the state. Any service that does enter into this arrangement will have to enter into a contractual arrangement with the government, with the Department of Education and Training, and that will ensure that parents receive the full benefits and pay no fees up-front.

An important point about this program is that it extends to long day care, and so those long day care programs that wish to take advantage of this will see significant fee reductions for families in that setting, and that was particularly important, Dr Bach, because we wanted this to be as universal as possible. There are many, many hundreds of long day care centres in Victoria that provide wonderful kindergarten programs within their settings, and we wanted to make sure that parents could access this significant fee reduction in those settings as well. This is a wonderful announcement. It will help many, many families with cost-of-living pressures as we recover from COVID-19, and it will see many, many more children take advantage of the early years of education.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:21): I thank the minister for her response, noting, however, that I had read her press release already. I will ask in addition, regarding the fact that this is an optional funding scheme: how, Minister, are not-for-profit kindergartens expected in your view to survive when the supposed free kinder scheme covers only 58 per cent of their break-even running costs and when the rules of that scheme, put in place by you, prevent them from charging a gap to their families?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:21): Thank you, Dr Bath, and I believe I covered that in my—

Members: Dr Bach!

Ms STITT: Oh, sorry. My apologies, Ms Bath and Dr Bach. I do believe I covered this issue in my substantive answer, but for your benefit I will go over it again. Community kindergarten programs running sessional kinders have average fees of—

A member interjected.

Ms STITT: I am not reading anything—between $1700 and $2000 per year. The funding amount that will be provided to these sessional kindergartens is $2122 per child. It more than covers the costs of the vast majority of these community kindergartens, and my department will be working very closely with the sector to ensure the full benefits of this wonderful initiative are passed on to families.

COVID-19

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:22): My question to the minister representing the Attorney-General follows last week’s release of the latest ABS prisoners-in-Australia data. Those figures show that during 2020 there has been an almost 12 per cent plunge in the number of people in Victorian jails. By contrast, the same figure nationally and in New South Wales is 5 per cent; in Western Australia, Queensland and Tasmania, less than 0.04 per cent; and in South Australia there has actually been an increase. Mr Grimley and I have consistently said that this very significant drop in Victoria would be a likely outcome from the long COVID-related deferral and termination of many cases, growing court delays and relaxed bail arrangements for many criminals. Minister, does the government agree with our view about what has now happened, or does it have an alternative explanation for these remarkable figures?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:23): I thank Ms Maxwell for her question and her ongoing interest in prisons and prison statistics. I will refer the matter to the Attorney-General for a response.

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:24): Thank you, Minister. Minister, as I noted in my previous question, the long period of COVID lockdowns has spawned even more delays in the hearing of cases and therefore the administration of justice across the Victorian court system. It is my understanding that there have been major blowouts, particularly in case loads, the median times between arrest and case finalisation for defended cases, and the median times between committals for and the outcomes of trials. As my supplementary question I therefore ask: when will the government be following the lead of a number of other jurisdictions, like New South Wales, Tasmania and the UK, for instance, and actively implementing policy changes to urgently reduce court delays?

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:25): Again I thank Ms Maxwell for her question, and it will be referred to the Attorney-General.

Ministers statements: LaunchVic

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:25): The Victorian government’s startup agency LaunchVic has been focused on growing our startup ecosystem since 2016, and the sector is on the rise. Over the past three years Victoria’s early-stage startup ecosystem has more than tripled in value, from $2.2 billion in 2018 to $7 billion in 2020, but we know that there is more work to do.

To help drive our economic recovery, we are supporting our entrepreneurs like never before, including female founders, who in general get less than 5 per cent of the total venture capital money that is deployed globally, and that is despite evidence that demonstrates investments in companies founded by women often delivering higher returns than those founded by men. Women have also been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is why supporting avenues for female job creation has never been more critical and it is something our government is absolutely committed to. LaunchVic has been working to increase female participation within the startup ecosystem by backing programs such as Girl Geek Academy, SheHacks Victoria and Scale Investors to increase the number of female founders and improve investment outcomes for women-led businesses.

It would be remiss of me to not acknowledge the hard work of an earlier minister for innovation, Philip Dalidakis, who was, and is indeed still, extremely passionate about ensuring that Victoria’s startup ecosystem is inclusive, diverse and one of the most supportive ecosystems in the world, particularly for female founders.

More recently, LaunchVic has announced funding for pre-accelerators to support emerging female entrepreneurs through Atto Accelerator and Springboard Enterprises. I was extremely proud to announce the game-changing $10 million Women’s Angel Sidecar Fund in the recent budget. A $10 million contribution to the women’s angel fund is expected to leverage an additional $30 million of private capital, injecting $40 million of new capital into the ecosystem to support female entrepreneurs at the beginning of their startup journey.

Kindergarten funding

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:27): I have got another question for the Minister for Early Childhood, and I note the minister’s admission in her previous answer to me that for some kindergartens—I would say many kindergartens—their costs will not be fully covered by the government’s new scheme. Minister, what advice have you received about the number of long-term kindergarten staff who will lose their jobs due to kindergartens not being able to pay the wage bill of some educators when the so-called free three-year-old kindergarten scheme commences?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:28): I thank the member for his question. I think that you are conflating a couple of issues here. Your question was in relation to long day care settings and kindergarten, and what I can indicate to you is that the enterprise agreement that has been struck is for sessional kindergarten and will ensure that, because teachers and educators are at the heart of these reforms, they are valued, because for many years, if not decades, they have been undervalued compared to their school counterparts. I am very proud of the fact that these reforms will not only create over 6000 jobs but value those workers in a way that has not been done before.

Dr Bach: On a point of order, President, I am interested to hear the minister’s possible parliamentary question, but my question was a narrow one regarding advice that she has received or perhaps not received.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr Bach. There is no point of order.

Ms STITT: I think I am entitled to answer the question in the manner that I see fit and without being patronised by Dr Bach. Your question is in relation to what advice I have received, and the advice that I have received not only from the department but through my direct communication with stakeholders in this sector is that they are thrilled about this initiative and they are going to be taking it up in very high numbers. There is detailed work going on with the sector now to ensure that the funding arrangements that are in place will maximise the benefits for all of the kindergarten settings right across Victoria, including funded three-year-old kinder as well as funded four-year-old kinder, and we will be working very hard to ensure that the long day care settings are included in this initiative.

The PRESIDENT: Dr Bach, before you ask your supplementary, your point of order was relevant before, but because the minister had 2 minutes to continue I said I would ask the minister to continue.

Mr Gepp interjected.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:30): Fine. Thank you, President. As Mr Gepp notes, I am new to this. I do know that it is customary to thank ministers for their answers; instead I will note that the minister got nowhere near answering my question about advice regarding job losses. By way of supplementary, I will note again that for some kindergartens the new scheme will cover only 58 per cent of running costs. The minister referred in her answer to my substantive question to discussions that had taken place with kindergartens, so I would like to ask the minister for some detail about that. What discussions have you personally had, Minister, with not-for-profit kindergartens about the real concerns they have about running costs and indeed even paying educators?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:31): I can advise the house that there have been discussions with a number of stakeholder groups. KECC, the kindergarten expansion consultative committee, has been set up to oversee and advise the government and the department on the rollout of the three-year-old kinder reform, which is nation-leading reform and the first of its kind in Australia. I can tell you that the sector are absolutely thrilled that Victorian children are going to be the first beneficiaries of three-year-old kinder around the country. I can assure you of that.

Green wedge planning

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:32): I think I have got the last question of the year, so we have saved the best one till last. My question without notice is to the minister representing the Minister for Planning. I refer to the planning minister’s press release of 4 November 2018, which states:

Each green wedge varies substantially in the mix of land uses, from farming and public open space to vegetation and conservation habitat, but all of it needs to be protected.

How is this consistent with the minister’s decision to allow multinational company HeidelbergCement, following a lobbying campaign by John Woodman associate Phil Staindl, to allow the Alex Fraser concrete crusher to continue operating at Clarinda, in the Kingston green wedge?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:33): Thank you, Mr Hayes, for your question. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Planning in the other place, and you will get a written answer in accordance with the standing orders.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): As a supplementary to that, thank you, Minister, I refer to the minister’s press release of 4 November 2018 again, titled ‘Protecting Melbourne’s green wedges from Skyscraper Guy’, which quoted Minister D’Ambrosio saying Matthew Guy is:

… planning to shove a million extra people into the suburbs—protecting our green wedges is more important than ever and only Labor will get it done.

Minister, how many extra people is the government planning to shovel into the suburbs?

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:34): Thank you, Mr Hayes, and I will refer your supplementary question to the minister for an answer.

Ministers statements: budget 2020–21

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (12:34): There certainly has not been a Scrooge in sight when it comes to this budget delivering for regional Victoria. The budget is about putting regional Victoria at the forefront of our state’s recovery. Given this most wonderful time of the year, it is only appropriate that our budget delivers the goods of over $8 billion for our country people. It is about putting people front and centre, delivering new schools for all kids regardless of whether they are on the naughty or nice list and building new transport connections to deliver presents faster.

It is also about getting more regional Victorians back into work as soon as possible. I am sure lots of country MPs will be taking the opportunity to contribute to the debate today about all the new initiatives which will support a more vibrant, more competitive and more caring regional Victoria. I think we have ticked off almost all of the items on regional Victoria’s letter to Santa this year. We are investing a record $5.2 billion to deliver new and upgraded social and affordable housing. A quarter of this investment will be in regional Victoria. You could say that we are making Santa and his reindeers’ job a little harder as there will be more homes to deliver to, but I do not think he will mind.

Recognising our need to invest in our mental health infrastructure, we are investing $869 million to extend mental health services and $121 million in a new Better at Home initiative to increase hospital services directly to patients’ homes. This is in addition to a further $120 million for the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund system. Our $4.1 billion investment in country road and rail upgrades is another highlight, including fast rail to Geelong that will put the speed of Santa’s sleigh to shame.

This year demonstrated that access to world-class digital infrastructure is snow laughing matter! We are making sure that regional Victorians have access to fast internet through the landmark $626 million Digital Future Now initiative. Four hundred and sixty-five million dollars will directly support our visitor economy to recover. I am sure following these investments there will be many sightseeing tours around Victoria. And our $156 million flagship Regional Jobs and Infrastructure Fund will invest in job creation and local infrastructure, the type of investment that will help communities spruce things up. Because of this investment, we are ensuring that country Victoria is a grinch-free zone.

Written responses

The PRESIDENT (12:36): Regarding questions today: Mr Quilty to Ms Tierney, two days, question and supplementary; Ms Maxwell, again to Ms Tierney, for the Attorney-General, two days, question and supplementary; and Mr Hayes to Ms Stitt, for the Minister for Planning, two days, question and supplementary.

Dr Bach: On a point of order, President, in response to my very first question to Minister Stitt, a narrow question about why it took so long for kindergartens to be informed of the true nature of the government’s scheme, the minister did not answer my question, so I would ask for you to consider asking Ms Stitt to respond to me in writing.

Ms Stitt: On the point of order, President, I did not accept the premise of the question. That was articulated clearly in my answer, and I gave a very detailed answer about the actual reality of the situation and the rollout of that announcement.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to check Hansard and get back to you.

Announcements

Felicitations

The PRESIDENT (12:38): Members, may I take this opportunity to thank you all. I know it has been a difficult and challenging year, with half of the year with me and the other half with Mr Leane in the chair. But seriously, I understand what difficulties we had, especially with members moving around in the chamber, members sitting in the upper gallery, members sitting in the back gallery and members moving to the microphones to make their contributions or allow other members to make their contributions. Without your cooperation it would have been very difficult for me and for the others. For that reason I would like to thank you very much.

I would like to thank the Clerk, the assistant clerks and the Deputy Clerk. I would like to thank the attendants. I would like to thank the security, the PSOs, the Department of Parliamentary Services and everyone in the precinct for their hard work. And at the same time I know our electorate staff worked very hard. They made it easier for our constituents, even during COVID-19. They had to explain to them and respond to their concerns. So really the only words I can say to you are: during this season break, make sure you have a break and make sure you enjoy it with your loved ones. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you all. Have a safe season, and hopefully I will see you all safe in the next year. Thank you very much.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:40): President, can I just join you in thanking the clerks, the attendants and staff of the Parliament. It has been a very difficult year, and I do think that we have, frankly, managed this better than the Assembly. We have actually managed to keep a semblance of democracy operating here rather than closing down the chamber. I do want to thank you for your forbearance and good nature on these matters. I think that as we move towards the new year we should return, as close as is practical, to a normal system, normal seating and normal rules. Now, I understand that we do not know what will happen, but it is, I think, the will of the chamber that democracy not be impeded in any way. I know that you have made your best endeavours to make sure that that is the case; I have no doubt that you will continue to do that. I do wish you and the chamber the very best.

Constituency questions

Northern Victoria Region

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:41): My question is for the Minister for Regional Development. Every week Bendigo Foodshare distributes donated and rescued food to nearly 13 000 central Victorian residents in need. The increasing rate of food insecurity in the community has caused Bendigo Foodshare to outgrow its current location. In response Greater Bendigo City Council is advocating for the creation of a Greater Bendigo community food hub, which will provide a new home for Bendigo Foodshare, allowing it to double its distribution capacity. Stage 1 of the project will include the new Bendigo Foodshare facility and a new space for the Bendigo Community Farmers Market. The project business case estimates construction of stage 1 at $5.38 million, with returned economic benefits of $9.13 million. The project will create many jobs during construction and seven new jobs when completed. Will the minister provide a funding commitment of $5.38 million to complete stage 1 of the Greater Bendigo community food hub?

Western Metropolitan Region

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:42): My question is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure in the other place from a resident who inserted a flyer into my letterbox. In the Yarraville area there has been an increase in the use of much louder and more piercing horns on the X’trapolis trains. While we accept that the train horns are required for safety reasons, older trains with softer and reasonable horns meet these safety requirements with less of the decibel impact on local residents and their wellbeing. These loud and piercing horns are being used as early as 5.00 am and as late as 1.00 am. Will the minister advocate for the installation of softer, less piercing and more reasonable horns on the X’trapolis trains?

Western Metropolitan Region

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:43): My constituency question is to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. The condition of Sunbury Road between Oaklands Road and Melbourne Airport is disgraceful. So bad is the surface, the minister’s own department has erected signs warning motorists about it and has lowered the speed limit yet again. The proliferation of heavy trucks on local roads and the refusal of the Andrews government to build the Bulla bypass has led to this breakdown of the road surface. The prospect of the Andrews Labor government pushing a further 800-plus trucks laden with toxic soil onto our roads every day promises to make it much worse, probably in the not-too-distant future. Minister, what are you doing to ensure Sunbury Road is safe for use by local motorists?

Western Victoria Region

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:44): My constituency question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. The build-up of fuel loads in the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve is of significant concern to the local community. The reserve spans over 350 acres and is surrounded by suburban blocks but is full of dead vegetation, logs and tree branches. Mulching that has taken place has only accumulated more fuel, with virtually none of it being removed after being mulched. It is frankly a bushfire waiting to happen. I raised this matter in February, and the situation has arguably worsened since then, so I ask the minister: what fuel load reduction is planned for the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve prior to the bushfire season, before we have the whole of Ocean Grove burnt out?

Eastern Metropolitan Region

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:45): My constituency question is for the Minister for Public Transport, Ben Carroll. Last year this Parliament passed an amendment on touting to the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which made touting illegal in Victoria. This was not only a win for the taxi and hire car industry but a reassurance to the public that they would be protected from these touts. Yet with the recommencing of flights into Melbourne touters are once again stealing work from those who are obeying the law. Mere days ago it was reported to me by a concerned constituent that a group of 10 touters stood together at the airport waving unsuspecting individuals into their cars and stealing rides from registered drivers who follow the rules. Touting is illegal and must be treated with seriousness by the regulator. The information I seek is: how many fines have been issued by the regulator to enforce this law in the last 12 months, and does the minister have confidence in the regulator’s plan to stop all the illegal activity?

Eastern Victoria Region

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:46): My question is for the Minister for Public Transport, and it relates to Moe residents, who are most concerned about a derelict and abandoned petrol station in Lloyd Street, Moe. It is an eyesore, and it is a contaminated site. The tanks have been removed, and the land is owned by VicTrack and V/Line. The leasing and parent companies in Queensland are doing nothing to rehabilitate or maintain the land. The Latrobe City Council is being forced to maintain that land through slashing and the like, but the residents are most concerned. The community want to rehabilitate the land and get it to turn into something that is usable and not an eyesore in the town, so I ask the minister: will he undertake to commit to enforcing the conditions of the lease to rehabilitate the land and work with the Latrobe City Council to see the land is developed for the best use of the Moe community?

Northern Metropolitan Region

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:47): My constituency question today is for the minister representing the Premier. A group of 65 refugees have been held in detention at the Mantra hotel in Preston in my electorate for almost 18 months. While the rest of Melbourne has been enjoying the relaxation of restrictions over the past few months, these refugees remain in perpetual lockdown, trapped within the walls of the hotel. I understand that while the contract with the Mantra hotel will expire at the end of the month, there are no clear plans to release the refugees from hotel detention or to ensure they receive the proper medical care and treatment that was promised. We have also heard very concerning reports about more refugees being locked up in a motel in Fawkner. My constituency question is: what advocacy has the government made to the federal government in order to secure the release of these refugees?

Eastern Metropolitan Region

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:48): My constituency question is for the Minister for Public Transport. Throughout this period of public health crisis that now fortunately seems to be coming to an end we have learned anew just how critical our hospitals are, and our public hospitals in particular. At this time it is very sad to note that many people, because of the strength of the restrictions that were placed upon them, did not go and have regular check-ups and too often allowed health conditions to simply get worse. In a hearing of a parliamentary committee that I am a member of I heard just the other day from the AMA that they expect ‘a tidal wave of chronic disease’ over the next few years. In this context it is more critical than ever to ensure access to our public hospitals. I have been contacted by numerous constituents asking whether I could discuss with the minister the possibility of a shuttle bus service from numerous car parks near Box Hill Hospital, especially the one near Ellingworth Parade and Harrow Street. I ask the minister whether he would consider it.

Northern Victoria Region

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:49): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. Minister, not only are ambulance wait times abysmal in Indigo shire, but apparently they are not crash-hot in Wodonga. This week an elderly grandmother waited 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive after her heart had stopped beating. A 45-minute wait for an ambulance to arrive from Tallangatta in order to take an 89-year-old woman 1.1 kilometres to the Wodonga Hospital—they could have put her in a wheelbarrow and pushed her to the hospital in less time. How did she survive that long after her heart stopped beating? She was lucky enough to have her cardiac emergency at her GP’s clinic. It seems unlikely to me that most residents of Northern Victoria are going to be that lucky. You can order a pizza and have it arrive in less than 30 minutes. Any later than that and you get the pizza for free. So my question for the minister is this: will patients who die due to unacceptable wait times be eligible for free funerals?

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

Northern Victoria Region

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria)

My question is to the Minister for Health.

The northern Melbourne suburb of Mernda, in my electorate, has experienced very rapid recent population growth as part of a projected 114 per cent increase in its resident numbers between 2013 and 2038.

Accordingly, there is a widening gap between resident numbers and local health and human services. Typically, people are forced to travel long distances to access needs such as disability support; housing, mental health, youth, ageing, CALD and refugee services; and early intervention and family violence programs.

A very significant potential solution in this context is the City of Whittlesea’s proposal for a Mernda health and wellbeing hub. I therefore ask if the minister would be prepared to join with me in meeting proponents of the hub to discuss the potential funding and development of a business case for it.

Bills

Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:51): I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak to the 2020–21 budget, because frankly this is the best budget for animals ever delivered in Victoria. This budget shows that the government has recognised how important companion animals are to Victorians and accepts responsibility for alleviating the suffering of wildlife affected by our presence here. Further, this budget shows that the government has recognised the urgent need to protect the remaining wilderness and biodiversity in this state, which continues to be under great duress through our appropriation of almost all land for human use.

I note in the budget that there is $5.7 million this year for supporting pets and animal welfare. There are also allowances in future years totalling $19.1 million over the forward estimates. This includes grants to rescue groups who do the vital work of rehoming cats and dogs. For the first time these groups are being systematically recognised and supported in their good work. Funds are being provided for organisations to provide accessible desexing of pets for vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians. Funds are provided to establish a task force to make findings and recommendations to the government on best practice models for the operation of the pet foster care and rescue sector, which I will be pleased to be involved in. We will also provide advice on how best to facilitate the rehoming of animals that have been utilised in medical research as for the first time these animals are being given a right to release.

Continuing funding has been provided for the operation of the pet exchange register, to enforce animal welfare legislation and for Animal Welfare Victoria for their compliance and enforcement activities. Continued funding has been provided to Animal Welfare Victoria for their key activities, not the least of which are the recently passed pound and shelter reforms and the long-awaited root-and-branch reviews of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and Wildlife Act 1975, neither of which has had such a comprehensive review since their inceptions in 1986 and 1975 respectively.

New funding is now available to support horses who require rehabilitation and rehoming through excellent volunteer-run organisations like Project Hope Horse Welfare. Along with the changes that the government is establishing to provide for mandatory kill notices and reporting and immediate reuniting and rescue group access, this budget will greatly improve the life chances of many animals who may have the chance of a caring relationship in a forever home instead of falling through the cracks of a system that has not recognised their rights or needs.

I congratulate the government for their commitment to increased environmental and biodiversity protection programs this year, with funding of tens of millions of dollars this year and more in the forward estimates. This includes grants to safeguard and improve biodiversity, including protecting threatened species. One example is improving the area of suitable habitat for the helmeted honeyeater and Leadbeater’s possum—animal species that are beloved emblems of Victoria. Of course these animals are not just of symbolic value. They have their own lives, and as indicators of our environmental health these species are keystones, the protection of which will benefit all our native wildlife. I note that these funds also represent an attempt to partner with private landholders and local government authorities for habitat protection and restoration. I applaud the government for establishing the settings and incentives where more individuals can play a part in protecting our local environment and planetary health.

I have noticed large areas of land coming under covenant to be protected throughout Victoria. I note that jobs will be created in carbon sequestration on private and public land by incentivising the restoration of native vegetation. This will provide a long-term income stream for landholders and is an important start in our attempts to lower our climate-forcing emissions. I am delighted that this expands the economic opportunities related to land management and restoration available to traditional owners. It also includes the provision of treatments for mange in bare-nosed wombats. This builds on the government’s actions to protect wombats from uncontrolled killing and the trial of wombat gates to protect land from wombats damaging fence lines as they move across their range. By assisting the volunteers and non-government efforts to suppress and treat the occurrence of mange in wombats we can be confident that this animal will continue to delight current and future generations of Victorians.

I would like to address a few brief comments about the circular economy. I had the privilege this last year of sitting on the Environment and Planning Committee as we made our significant inquiry into the problems of recycling and waste management in this state. As a result of our investigations and deliberations significant new investments in recycling and hazardous waste management were identified as desperately needed. Perhaps the most obvious and recent change as a result of those recommendations is the announcement of the container deposit scheme. I note and congratulate the government on the provision of $143 million this year and more in the forward estimates to expand recycling in Victoria and to better manage hazardous waste. I applaud the support for Recycling Victoria to transform our recycling sector and move little by little towards a more circular economy. The container deposit scheme is long overdue, and other changes that reduce litter and improve recycling are welcomed. I applaud the strengthening of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria, which plays a vital role to protect us all from pollution and other environmental insults.

Last year saw devastating bushfires in Victoria. It is estimated that along with the significant property damage over a billion animals were killed. I have worked with the minister and department since then to look at what went wrong with our wildlife response to those fires and note that the government has released the Wildlife Welfare Bushfire Response 2020 Action Plan, which has been developed in partnership with the wildlife welfare sector and me. I note that this will establish a new wildlife welfare sector liaison role, provide and coordinate veterinary services, incorporate a wildlife incident controller in the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s emergency response teams and set up an online tool to collect and share wildlife assessment and triage data. I note that koalas released from care will be monitored to understand survival rates and provide feedback on veterinary and release approaches. I welcome these initiatives funded by the $59 million bushfire biodiversity response and recovery program. I thank the government for providing $10.5 million for immediate support for Victoria’s wildlife and biodiversity, including on-ground works, community education and capacity building. I also thank them for additional funding through grants for wildlife rescuers and carers, who do great and largely thankless work to continue to shelter animals impacted by fire. Indeed it might easily go unsaid, but I thank the government for all they are doing to support bushfire recovery.

I also thank them for their ongoing support of Wildlife Victoria and their wildlife hotline, which plays a vital role to coordinate rescuers’ efforts to help many animals every day of the year. I applaud the government’s funding of $83.8 million over four years to support the redevelopment of Werribee Open Range Zoo, including the relocation of the Asian elephant herd from Melbourne Zoo to a much larger range at Werribee. People will understand that my and my party’s relationship with zoos is always one that is cautious and grounded in our belief that animals should not be caged for entertainment or even for our education. Nevertheless, I applaud all of the work that Melbourne zoos have done to move their focus towards supporting threatened and endangered species, on educating the public on the importance of maintaining our environment and our biodiversity and on assisting wildlife harmed through contact with humans, including wounded native waterbirds of all kinds deliberately shot by hunters. I was heartened to hear when meeting the CEO of Zoos Victoria, Jenny Gray, of how they changed the traditional mindset of a historic zoo model to embracing the role that all zoos should now have in lifting populations of our endangered native wildlife and returning them to where they belong.

Elephants in the wild range over lands where they can travel for hundreds or thousands of kilometres. Werribee Open Range Zoo will not allow that, but it will provide a significantly greater area of enclosure which provides a much greater chance that these animals can live a far more satisfying and interesting life than their previous enclosure at Parkville. If we are to keep elephants in captivity in Australia—and that remains a questionable decision—we owe them this kind of care and this kind of space.

I applaud the government’s efforts to support our agricultural sector to grow and modernise. I have been vocal in my support for change and innovation in our agricultural sector. In particular I hope our farmers and processors can be supported to embrace the new possibilities for new plant-based and cell-based foods that can provide nutritious and delicious foods without the concomitant environmental damage, health impacts and biosecurity risks that traditional animal agriculture requires.

I implore the government to invite the plethora of plant-based meat companies to set up manufacturing bases at Lara in my electorate because it would not only create jobs locally but position them right next door to Avalon Airport and a ready means to export delivery through international flights. This sector is one of the fastest growing in the world as humans are coming to terms with the fact that animal-based agriculture is the largest user of land and water and are making the switch to reflect their concerns for the environment. Western Victoria is the best-placed region to ensure that the whole state can benefit and become a world leader in the sector. It is therefore pleasing to see the government’s commitment of over $65 million over four years towards a strategy to grow and modernise Victorian agriculture. This includes establishing the AgTech Regional Innovation Network and a pathways to export program that will assist our farmers to access markets throughout our region. I hope that a decent proportion of this money can be used for innovative plant-based and cell-based food innovation, and I hope the government will consider further investment in this sector.

Like the government, I am concerned about homelessness and housing for all Victorians. I am obviously not the only person or group that has urged the government to take action to increase both public housing and affordability of housing in general. I consider the provision of shelter a basic human need. When not met it produces stress and suffering for our citizens and a range of negative unintended social and economic consequences across the whole state.

I applaud the commitment of $5.3 billion to build new homes for social and community housing. I say again: I applaud this commitment. However, I remain concerned about a number of related issues. There are currently, depending on reports, somewhere around 80 000 or more people on the waiting list for public housing in Victoria. The government proposes to build 12 000 dwellings. Clearly this will not satisfy the current demand, let alone any growth that might occur due to the pandemic and related recession. And so, along with this excellent commitment to build new public and community housing, the government must strive to ensure that the other economic settings are right to ensure housing for all.

An NGO, Prosper Australia, has calculated from water records that metropolitan Melbourne has some 69 000 properties vacant and unused—many homeless people or families under housing stress, yet many vacant properties. Why can public policy not solve both of these problems? Perhaps we should do as Barcelona and others have done, where landlords must either fill vacant dwellings or compulsorily provide them for use as public housing.

While they have not gone that far, what this government has done is introduce a new vacant residential land tax to properly tax land that is neither owner-occupied nor available to rent. On my calculations this should be delivering several hundred million dollars to Victoria’s account each year, and yet last year it was charged on just a few hundred properties. Why is this tax not being collected? If the tax were not being collected because it has driven a significant change in behaviour, driving unused assets into production and making more houses available for rent, then this would also be a significant positive result. I am unconvinced that this is happening.

This budget has a significant deficit—over $23 billion. However, it is not all bad for all people. Last year—2019–20—the value of land in Victoria increased by $135.6 billion, so some people are getting richer. It just is not fairly or evenly distributed, and very little of this windfall helps the poorest or youngest. In fact it is overwhelmingly to the credit of property developers and landholders who are older and richer than the average Victorian.

Governments in Victoria are continually making decisions that rezone land, often increasing its value at the stroke of a pen. This creates over $5 billion in rezoning windfalls every year, almost none of which is captured for the public. If it were, the government could harness this publicly created value to make a sustained commitment to public housing. This government has spoken about land value capture and knows its importance in theory but misses the opportunity to move forward with any significant taxation reform measures to capture some of this value for public benefit, and this is disappointing. Incidentally because of the obvious potential for corruption, political parties taking donations from property developers should be banned, as it is in the other eastern seaboard states.

The other measure that the government could take to make housing more affordable is to increase the availability of suitable land on the market for new homes. According to Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s urban development plan report the government has responded to criticisms of limited land supply and more than doubled land lots in the development pipeline to 370 000 lots. Despite this the industry only managed to sell 7183 lots in 2019. That is less than 2 per cent of available land supply sold to the open market to encourage competition and push prices down. I urge the government to do more to encourage greater competition amongst housing providers. Will the government investigate the role of escalating land taxes on developers that hold sites for decades drip-fed at ever-increasing prices? Such a spur to activity may help to encourage competition and ultimately more affordable housing and reduced homelessness.

I want to talk briefly about clean energy. It is obviously important to move society away from fossil fuels towards clean energy generation. I massively applaud the commitment of the government to build a new grid-scale battery farm in western Victoria, along with new and upgraded transmission networks. This will facilitate new renewable energy projects throughout the region and attract new investments and jobs. I have met a number of times with the Australian Energy Market Operator to understand the importance of these projects, and many of my constituents want to make sure that new transmission lines are built with appropriate safety and environmental considerations.

I welcome the government providing financial support for the Victorian Building Authority to support a proactive inspections program targeting high-risk building and plumbing work across the state. In this area prevention is much cheaper than cure, and the government’s experience with flammable cladding should provide a salutary lesson in taking a hands-off approach to building works. We must ensure that property buyers get what they pay for and that residents are able to remain healthy and safe.

I want to thank the government for their commitment to provide support and investment in my region of Western Victoria. I note that the financial support to my region is far in advance of that provided by this or any other government in the past. In ordinary times there are a range of federal and state measures that systematically disadvantage those who live outside the big cities. I particularly want to thank this government for those measures that offset this by systematically providing advantages to rural Victorians and regional businesses. This includes concessions on government taxes like stamp duty and payroll tax and increased amounts for the first home owner grant in regional Victoria compared to metropolitan Melbourne.

In addition to the systemic changes that help with regional economic recovery, the government has also provided funding for a range of specific infrastructure projects and other investments in Western Victoria. I thank the government for providing $384 million for the first stage of the Warrnambool Base Hospital redevelopment, including a new emergency department, operating theatres and acute inpatient beds. I am pleased to see $75 million allocated to purchase land and undertake detailed planning and early works for a new Melton hospital. All Victorians deserve first-class hospitals and medical treatment options.

I thank the government for providing funding towards the development of the Geelong fast rail project. Once complete, faster trains and fewer stops between our state’s country capital and Melbourne will be a boost for Geelong residents and businesses and take some of the traffic of the already overloaded Princes Freeway. I note that the budget provides more funds to upgrade the rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds and to complete stage 2 of the Warrnambool rail line upgrade, which will allow modern VLocity trains to operate to and from Warrnambool for the first time. I also note that funds have been provided to develop the business case for the South Geelong tunnel.

I thank the government for its investment in tourism destinations in Western Victoria, which will be an important part of the economic recovery and further growth in my region. I appreciate the investment at Gariwerd—the Grampians, in whitefella language—to increase the trails on the Gariwerd Peaks Trail, better visitor facilities at MacKenzie Falls and improvements at Brambuk Cultural Centre in Halls Gap. I welcome the tourism investment in Rainbow, which will help make it a new tourism mecca, and the investment in upgrading and building new community facilities like the Rex Theatre in Charlton. I welcome the construction of new CFA stations at Warracknabeal and Dimboola.

I welcome the $255 million investment in our Great Ocean Road, with a five-year program of upgrades to commence soon, and the continued and increased investment in maintaining and resurfacing regional roads. Incidentally, Melburnians who have been locked in their homes for a long time this year and locked in the metropolitan area for even longer, I urge you to get out to Western Victoria these Christmas holidays or to plan your holiday there for next year. We have the best bush walks, the best beaches, the best rivers for canoeing, great pubs and restaurants and great arts and crafts that you will find nowhere else at all. Get outdoors, go for a drive, catch a scenic train and enjoy this remarkable part of the world.

I welcome the efforts made in the budget to upgrade regional schools in Western Victoria, including upgrades, new buildings or refurbishments at Stawell Secondary College, Hamilton Parklands School, Rainbow P–12 College and Concongella, Tarnagulla and Natimuk primary schools. There are many additional investments in Western Victoria that I have not mentioned today. While I try to advocate for the people and animals in Western Victoria every day and while there are many things in the budget that I specifically advocated for, there are a great many things that I did not, and I have not specifically addressed them here. Nevertheless, I appreciate these initiatives and pay tribute to the government’s upper house representatives in my region, Jaala Pulford and Gayle Tierney, who have ensured that every part of this region is seeing investment and support in great measure. I pay tribute to them because I know just how hard they have worked.

Even a good government, though, makes mistakes or sometimes fails to take action for fear of making mistakes. I do not much thank the government for the millions of dollars ploughed into the unsustainable and increasingly unpopular animal racing industry. We know that animal welfare is listed as a key initiative, but I somehow doubt that it is an industry priority judging from the continuing crop of dead dogs and dead horses that their activity produces. I do not much thank the government for ploughing money into the dying sport of animal hunting, which damages tourism in our regional areas. There are millions of dollars in the budget based on a new tax on electric vehicles, and I will keep my comments brief and note that it appears to be a tax that slows the transition to sustainable transport and lacks clear economic thinking.

I stood here last year and predicted that the next great pandemic, which may kill millions, could not be far away. Less than a year later, it hit. The great conceit and underlying assumption that underpins this budget is that the extraordinary situation we have seen in 2020 is a one-in-100-year event. While it is true that Victoria has not seen a situation like this for 102 years, the evidence suggests it may not be too long before we see it again. I hate to play the role of Talthybius in Greek mythology, the bearer of bad news, but I am sick of playing the role of Cassandra, who correctly predicts the future only to be disbelieved. If we do not fundamentally reform our relationship with animals both here and in other places around the world, we will see more and greater disease visited upon us, more regularly and more painfully.

All of the great pandemics that have been visited upon this world in the last 10 to 15 years are the result of exploitation of animals—every single one. Even during the coronavirus pandemic Victoria was visited with an avian flu outbreak, and that killed thousands of animals and caused mass culls. In other parts of the world, while in lockdown there were outbreaks of swine flu, and it only takes one of these outbreaks to go airborne and it will put 2020 in the shade. If this happens next year or the year after, how then will the government frame their one-in-100-year budget? If we accept the idea that this budget is required just once to pump prime our economy and allow it to quickly recover to normal levels, then it might reasonably be assessed and well directed. However, if we consider that in fact Victoria and the world face unparalleled health and environmental challenges and the status quo will no longer serve us, then governments must be prepared to take even more bold action—and I urge this government on with that task.

I welcome this expansive budget. I have said it right through: I welcome the investment; it is fantastic, and it will revitalise the state of Victoria. It is without doubt the best budget for animals ever delivered in Victoria. It is probably, by my estimation, the best budget for Western Victoria on infrastructure and other spending, and it is a very decent budget for renewable energy and environmental protection and for business and economic recovery. I will leave my comments there.

Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:17): It is a pleasure to make a contribution today. This is my first contribution to the budget in this place, and I will start by saying that this coronavirus pandemic has certainly impacted so many people in our community—and indeed in the northern suburbs, where I live, I have seen it firsthand. Whether at my favourite cafes, restaurants, bars or live music venues, it is not hard to see the impact that this global pandemic has had. But as our state and communities begin to recover, it is so important that we do not just simply snap back to the old normal. We must repair, recover and make ourselves stronger than ever before.

For me, I am so excited to see this budget is all about jobs. The budget is about getting people back to work, but importantly it is focused on those that were hardest hit by the coronavirus pandemic—women, retrenched workers, the long-term unemployed and young people. We have seen and heard lots about all the amazing investments that this Labor government is making in areas such as transport infrastructure, school buildings, social housing, health care and renewable energies—investments that will not only improve our society but create jobs and economic growth around it.

I do, however, want to spend today talking about the opportunities for young people from this budget, and home to so many young people are the inner-northern suburbs. This Labor government knows that to create secure employment—in fact there are so many young people all through the Northern Metropolitan Region—we need to make sure that with this budget we ensure that we invest in policies and strategies that will not only create jobs but ensure employment support for young jobseekers.

Before entering Parliament this year I spent many years working in the not-for-profit sector, particularly on helping young Australians develop careers and get employment opportunities. I helped young people kickstart their careers through work experience, vocational training, tertiary education and other things, ensuring that these young people can get into the workforce skilled, qualified and in secure work. I am enormously proud of the budget announcements around vocational education and training. It makes me reflect on the trainees that I know who are very close to graduating this year—trainees like Jamarra Ugle-Hagan, a trainee who I worked with in my previous role at AFL SportsReady. He may be known to many of you because his career has well and truly kicked off. Last night he was announced as the number 1 draft pick for the team of the Western Bulldogs, and I understand there are a number of supporters of the Bulldogs in this place. But Jamarra is just one of the very many young people getting opportunities through traineeships whose careers will soar in 2021 because of investments in training and education.

I know how difficult it can be, even before we had the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. I spent each and every day talking to employers and business and industry about unlocking opportunities for young people all across Victoria and indeed all across our nation to help them find work. But I know how important a job is for young Victorians, and that kept me going—to get young people into long-term, financially stable and secure jobs to help move themselves forward. The investments in Victoria, particularly the Jobs for Victoria program, do just that. This budget invests a record $619.4 million into delivering a bigger, more hands-on Jobs Victoria network, all about connecting jobseekers to the jobs they need. This Labor government will fund traineeships for young people in the Victorian public sector, which is such an important first step on the path to a career. It will support young jobseekers with practical support to get job ready, whether that is a resume refresh or a new shirt so that they can look professional in an interview. I know just how competitive it is, particularly for those jobseekers from disadvantaged backgrounds.

We are going to bring together community organisations, local business and government to unlock job opportunities in suburbs and regional areas with high unemployment. This is all on top of our investment of $250 million into Jobs Victoria to create 10 000 jobs using wage subsidies to support Victorians who need a hand up to find a steady, secure job, because we know it is more than just creating jobs; we need to ensure that the system exists to keep people in work, to support them and to ensure that that work is solid, stable and secure. Jobs Victoria advocates are going to be hitting the streets and reaching out to jobseekers in the community, and through this the advocates will be able to understand the needs of jobseekers and support them in upskilling, training and mentoring. Careers counsellors will help people hone their goals and match their skills to a job. I think that is going to be one of the most exciting new jobs coming out of this budget, and I cannot wait to see it go gangbusters, no doubt.

This Labor government understands the value of trades-based education. Unlike others, we know the opportunities that TAFE unlocks for so many Victorians. That is why this government made TAFE free and why TAFE and training are at the heart of our recovery. We are investing $1 billion into the TAFE and training system, giving thousands of young Victorians the opportunities to re-skill and upskill. In addition to the 18 000 places announced earlier this year, we are creating a further 80 000 free and subsidised places in our TAFEs. Not only does this funding provide the skills needed for jobseekers but it is targeted to support training in priority areas, including health care, community services and construction. Trades-based education helps give that important first step to our young people in our communities, giving them the skills they need to secure the jobs they want without the hefty price tag.

It is essential that we build back better. This global coronavirus pandemic has exposed how so many, especially young people, are vulnerable because of insecure work. Nearly two-thirds of the total decline in employment in Australia from February to August was amongst casual employees, but the issue of insecure work did not suddenly appear due to the coronavirus pandemic. No, insecure work has existed for a long time; indeed around 600 000 workers in Victoria are casual. Among them are people that I call my friends, and I know just how tough this has been for them this year. For too long these workers have been forced to choose between staying home sick or paying their bills—an impossible choice. It is not right, and it is not fair. The budget has committed to providing funds to develop a pilot scheme. It is something that we can all be proud of, and I know the massive difference it will make for the many casual workers living and working in the Northern Metropolitan Region.

Young people have done it tough through the coronavirus pandemic. No one initiative stands out as the most amazing landmark initiative out of this budget, because there are just so many of them, but I will say that overwhelmingly I am hearing from young people who are excited about the creation of a safety net when they are vulnerable and need to take time off work, when they need to care for loved ones. I am really excited about this new pilot scheme for casual employees, and I cannot wait to see where we go from there. I am feeling very vulnerable about this because it is something that for me is very real and is very true. I reflected only last night that not too long ago almost everyone I knew was stood down, had their hours reduced, had a pay cut and were worried and stressed about what the rest of this year would bring. For many there is a feeling or a sense of reassurance and safety from this Victorian budget with measures such as this, more investment in traineeships and apprentices, more spaces in TAFEs and trades and of course the continuation of Victoria’s Big Build. I am really excited about this budget and have much, much more to say, but I will leave my remarks at that. I certainly commend the budget today.

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (13:27): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this budget debate. It is a very significant budget in so many ways, not least because of the terrible situation the state has faced with the COVID crisis, the terrible damage that has been done to our small businesses and the terrible loss of jobs that has occurred—and there is no sign in Victoria of that turning around in a hurry as yet. But the state government has brought forward a number of proposals, and there are some record spending announcements in this budget. There are a few serious problems, though, that I want to put on the record. The first is that the taking on of debt is appropriate at the moment, as long as it is balanced and focused on actually delivering jobs and business improvements now. This is not about projects that will be delivered in five or 10 years time, or 15, 20 or 30 years time; this is about delivering jobs now. It is actually about a very sharp and targeted focus on that. We hear the West Gate Tunnel is in crisis today, and that is a case of a government that has not been able to manage the crisis and has not been able to make sure that the jobs on that project go forward in the way that they should. This is a time when the government needs to be focused on that and make sure that that does actually occur.

I do want to say that the government has hidden a lot in this budget. The non-provision of the traditional budget paper 4, the budget paper that lays out all of the major initiatives in terms of infrastructure and the spending year by year, the alterations to spending, the projects that are delayed and the projects that are accelerated, is unprecedented in my view. In my time in Parliament I do not believe I have seen such a brazen attempt to cover up the spending blowouts, the project delays and the cock-ups that have occurred under this government in its infrastructure portfolios, particularly in the transport infrastructure portfolio. I ask a simple question: why on earth would you hide this if you have nothing to hide? If you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear. In this case the government has a lot to hide, and the cost blowouts and the time delays and the problems in that budget should be visible to the community and should be visible to the business community.

But people are fast waking up to the incompetence of this government and the failures of this government to deliver for the state. The credit rating agencies have understood that the state has not got a plan to repay debt. Take on debt, by all means. Take on targeted debt that is actually going to deliver jobs and is going to deliver infrastructure projects now, but do not take on debt that is of a type that you have no way of paying back in the future and no plan to pay it back. We heard the Premier at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) make it clear that the government has no plan to pay it back and nor has the Treasurer laid out a schedule or a program to deal with the debt that is being taken on.

This will exceed the government’s own estimates, $155 billion, in a very short period of time, and with the recurrent position of additional deficits that goes forward the debt in Victoria will be much greater than in equivalent states, and indeed the Shadow Treasurer Louise Staley made the point very clearly in her response to the budget that all of the other states combined—all of them and the territories added together—will take on a less serious situation than Victoria alone. So this is, I think, a very significant position that the state has put itself in.

And you ask: what is the money being spent on and what value are we actually getting for some of this spending? It is true that some jobs are being created by projects that are being started, but in this budget there are massive projects like the Suburban Rail Loop. The government says it will cost $50 billion. All the estimates I hear out of the department are between $150 billion and $200 billion. In fact, as I have said in this chamber before, I had one bureaucrat give me a very specific estimate of $162 billion. The scale of this spending is huge, and the failure to have a cost-benefit analysis, the failure to actually have a proper business case behind that, is just extraordinary. If you had said to me that the state would be proceeding with the allocation of $2.2 billion for early works, I would say, as I said in this chamber the other day, what early works? Where will the stations be? We have not actually seen the plans for this. We have not actually seen the drawings. We actually have not seen the connections of those stations and how it will operate in a particular suburb of the city. And you ask the question: why would the government proceed in this way? It is putting the cart before the horse. You are actually starting to spend money on a project before you have designed the project. This is bizarre on this scale.

I say the government should have been focused on smaller, more manageable projects—projects that actually could deliver the jobs quite quickly. And we talked ahead of the budget about some of the projects that could be moved on quite quickly—small tramline extensions, the cross links in the city, the duplications of rail lines, the extensions to rail lines. All of these are practical, sensible things that could be done very quickly that would generate jobs and would deliver a dividend to the community in better transport connections across the city, connections to key places and the ability of people to move around. So there would be an economic benefit long term but there would also be the jobs now. We would complete parts of our transport system and do that in a constructive and targeted way. But that is not what this government is doing. It wants to spend on the very big projects—the projects that it likes to talk about but has not done the work for.

I want to today just indicate that the failure to provide basic information about some of these projects is absolutely scandalous. Not only is what was in budget paper 4 not available for all of the projects across the state, including in my own portfolio area of transport infrastructure, but indeed the government will not even provide the information on projects that are fully completed. About 40 level crossing removals have been completed, but you ask the government: what is the cost of those level crossings—the completed, finished ones? They must know that. It is like when you finish building your house. You have paid the builder, you have paid all the cheques, you actually know the value that you have paid across. Now, the government will not say those figures. They will not release them. Mr Jennings would not release it in the budget in this chamber on the last occasion, in the budget committee. I asked him directly, and he said to ask at PAEC. We asked at PAEC, and Jacinta Allan would not provide that figure.

We have asked through questions on notice. We have asked again and again and again and again about these simple points: what is the cost of this level crossing that is now completed, or this group of level crossings? I would understand if the government said, ‘We did three of them in a cluster; we’ll only give you an aggregated cost’. I could understand that, but they will not even do that. You have got to ask: what do they have to hide? I will tell you what they have to hide, it is actually very clear: there have been cost blowouts on almost every one of these, massive cost blowouts.

We know that the first tranche of level crossing removals blew out by $3.3 billion according to the Auditor-General (AG), and we know that there have been further cost blowouts. For this budget I note from the PAEC questionnaire—I read that quite closely—it is clear that there is a $336 million Treasurer’s advance for level crossings. So again, slipped through, not reported properly, huge amounts of money being expended because of poor design, poor scoping, poor planning and poor preparation. If you do this in this way, you will blow out a lot of money. The alliance model has its strengths, but it also has its weaknesses. We know how with a house having a cost-plus system with your builder can generate massive costs very quickly because the builder has an incentive to actually inflate the cost, not to keep the costs constrained within a particular envelope. And that is the model that is being used with the alliance mechanism with all of these major projects at the moment. It is no wonder that we are seeing such big cost blowouts.

But I want to draw the chamber’s attention to the good work done by the Grattan Institute, and in particular Marion Terrill, Owain Emslie and Greg Moran, in The Rise of Megaprojects: Counting the Costs. This is a very important piece of work, and it is a piece of work that we are very committed to. We see that there is a lot of good sense in this piece of work from the Grattan Institute. They have laid out the problems with a lot of these megaprojects—the failure to scope them, the run-out of massive costs, the massive cost blowouts that come from these megaprojects—and they have said if you want to do COVID spending, concentrate on targeted projects, narrow projects, projects that can be got up and running quickly, and that is exactly what we have been saying about a lot of the smaller projects across the city.

The Grattan Institute recommendations are very sensible. They draw attention to the planning and scoping process as a key weakness of the Andrews government’s management of these projects. Their recommendations say that the AG should conduct an immediate review of transport infrastructure projects valued at $100 million or more. They say projects over $500 million should face continuous disclosure by the relevant minister where material changes occur.

Let us be quite clear here. On the West Gate Tunnel Project—we have talked about that this week—the community learned about the cost blowouts and the time delays from the stock exchange. That is where we learned about it, because Transurban, under the rules of the stock exchange, have to disclose material changes, and they have to do it in a timely way. So Transurban was required to declare, but the state government was not—they were dragged kicking and screaming. It was only after the tabling happened at the stock exchange that we knew that that project had blown out of control, and we know today it is even further out of control.

The report says ministers should disclose cost estimates for infrastructure over $100 million and reconcile changes in the project. They should strengthen the role of infrastructure advisory bodies. I will put on the record that I have two views about this. On the one hand I see the role of Infrastructure Victoria and similar bodies, but those bodies do need to work with government, and they can, but they can provide a sensible, longer term view. It calls for a greater role for modest-sized projects; megaprojects should be proposed last, not first. It says the commonwealth should provide national guidelines; I would actually say the states should develop the national guidelines as well for their own purposes jointly.

It says state infrastructure ministers should provide completed project data for any infrastructure project over $20 million, including the details of the project completed, and state governments should publish post-completion reviews of all projects costing more than $100 million, including deviations in eventual costs as well as deviations in costs and benefits and scope. I mean, think about some of these points in terms of changes in cost-benefit. A business case is done, the cost-benefit is X or Y, and then the project doubles in price.

Well, that surely changes the cost-benefit massively, and that is what we have seen with a lot of these projects. Are they delivering the actual benefits that are actually claimed? I have talked in this chamber before about the Caulfield to Dandenong corridor and the nine crossings there replaced with a sky rail, and let me ask the question: how much is spent? They will not tell us exactly but we think it is around $4 billion—around $4000 million—and what did we get for it? Are the trains working more effectively? No; the punctuality has declined since that project came forward. The V/Line punctuality has declined. So you just simply say to yourself, ‘Well, what has been the benefit of this?’. There is a loss of capacity because there is a loss of passing loops on the system. The project has been built, and $4 billion later, approximately—we would like to know but they will not tell us; what do they have to hide?—what has the performance been of that line? The punctuality has crashed since the line has been upgraded and $4 billion spent. What is the cost benefit of $4 billion of spending without the return that you would expect for the commuter, for the passenger? You would expect to see a good outcome, and that is not what we are seeing.

I want to say just a couple of other things in the small time that remains. We need to think about how we are going to fund some of these things. The state government I noticed in the budget have turned themselves very strongly towards value capture. For the Suburban Rail Loop they have value capture firmly in their sights, and they are going after small businesses, property owners and householders in these corridors. That is who they are going after, and they are going to put levies and taxes on these people. I say they need to come clean about what these levies and taxes are going to be. If you live near one of these stations and the concentric model as you go out, are you going to pay $2000, $5000, $7000 a year as a levy on your rates? And for how long will you pay that? They need to come clean. They need to rule out absolutely the value capture along these corridors. I say they cannot be trusted on this. This government cannot be trusted, and they will not rule it out, it seems, at this point because I think they want to actually pay for some of the costs of this huge monster by stinging our— (Time expired)

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (13:42): I want to thank the previous speakers for their contributions, especially Mr Meddick. Much of what he said I agree with. The pandemic that hit the Australian economy this year was a crisis that presented an opportunity—an opportunity to refocus our economy away from its unhealthy dependence on Third World rates of population growth. Two decades ago we had a construction industry that was there to provide housing for our population, but since then it has seemed that our population is there to provide profits and work for the construction industry, profits for the housing industry and profits for corrupt land speculators. And if there is not enough population to do this, like now, the industry can call out to bring in more and more people. When no people are arriving, like now, we can belatedly recognise a longstanding crisis for our homeless people and unleash a wave of construction to house them after decades of neglect.

I am not against the budget allocating money for housing the homeless; I welcome it. Sustainable Australia has been calling out for as much in this chamber from day one, but there should be more of it and it should be public housing, not just social housing. It appears that our environment, our housing affordability and Melbourne’s quality of life can all be sacrificed at the altar of the construction industry. Do not get me wrong; we need a construction and a housing industry, but it should be the servant of our people and not our master.

At the centre of the government’s close relationship with the construction and housing industry is the promotion of the population Ponzi scheme and its Big Build program—another feature of this budget. The program is mostly a brown old deal, not a Green New Deal, and its approach to economic recovery is far too closely tied to unsustainable population growth, far too many carbon emissions and increasing consumption and waste.

The message in projects attached to the Big Build, such as the Suburban Rail Loop, which Mr Davis was just talking about, and the North East Link, is that the government is preparing the city for a dystopian high-rise nightmare, which is Melbourne at 8 million. It is not often talked about in the press, but our rapidly increasing population growth is very unpopular with Melbourne residents, and survey after survey shows that.

The reality is that these projects are being constructed on the principle of just about managing, the JAM principle, where Melbourne’s ever-growing construction and population growth is only ever just about managed. It is not managed well; it is not managed easily; it is only just about managing. This means that for as long as this government continues to sign up to the population Ponzi scheme Melbourne will become increasingly dysfunctional and dystopian.

Claims that all we need is better planning or to invest more in infrastructure are nonsense. A Grattan Institute report shows that in the decade from 2004 onwards, after Australia ramped up its migration, states and territories had a $106 billion decline in their finances due to their increased infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending increased threefold, and by 2014 they were paying 3 per cent more of their revenues in interest and depreciation. The more we grow, the more costly, disruptive, logistically difficult and suboptimal each new project becomes.

In Melbourne the cost of retrofitting new infrastructure to accommodate greater population size and density in an already built-out city becomes prohibitively expensive as we buy back property or bridge over or tunnel under existing assets. Each new project results in productivity losses, not productivity gains. This is what economists call diseconomies of scale, and we can see these diseconomies in the now mind-boggling cost of new roads. Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel is estimated at $6.7 billion for just 5 kilometres of highway—well over $1 billion per kilometre. The North East Link is said to cost $16 billion.

The infrastructure catch-up is an illusion. It has never happened, and it is not going to as long as we run the population Ponzi scheme as an economic strategy. Rapid population growth drives up land values and exhausts our natural endowments in things like water so we have to turn to expensive desalination plants. Retrofitting already built-up areas with bridges and tunnels is much more expensive than providing the original infrastructure in the first place.

And it is not just roads. Parramatta’s new Arthur Phillip High School—in New South Wales, admittedly—is a high school in more ways than one. At 17 storeys of school and costing $225 million for 2000 students in Sydney, it is, at $112 500 per place, six to 10 times the cost of a traditional low-rise school. There is little wonder that Infrastructure Australia has predicted that traffic congestion and access to schools, jobs, hospitals and green open space in Melbourne and Sydney are going to get worse, not better, in the years ahead.

All this is at enormous cost to our community health. Expecting infrastructure to catch up magically as we add 130 000 people every year to Melbourne is pure fantasy. That is the infrastructure needed for a city the size of Ballarat to be built in Melbourne each year. Adding infrastructure has become an industry in itself. In August this year Premier Andrews referred to the construction industry as the ‘lifeblood’ of the Victorian economy. This point of view may be well received in property developer and certain union circles and amongst those who meet at the Flower Drum, but the government has no right to make Victoria’s economy so narrow and so vulnerable. We may take longer to recover from the coronavirus, not just because of our second wave but because our economy is all about construction and service industries. We need a broader economy. We need to do more than pay lip-service to the need for smart manufacturing and clean agriculture.

One element of our neglect of a new-age, successful manufacturing industry has been the lack of support for vocational education and training. Government spending on vocational education and training has declined in real terms over the past 15 years. The Mitchell Institute has predicted a further drop of 30 per cent in new apprenticeships by 2023 due to the pandemic. It is good to see the government starting to address this, yet we have skills shortages in technical and trades occupations, with the number of young people who are neither in education nor in work rising, and our answer is to import more people.

I do note the promising work that the government is undertaking in regard to recycling and clean energy. We have seen this state budget described as a clear winner for clean energy, with more than $1.6 billion invested in our future. Among these announcements, the Victorian government’s four-year Recycling Victoria policy will invest more than $300 million in the state’s waste and recovery sector, including $40.9 million to establish recycling infrastructure in regional areas. However, Victoria needs to work with the commonwealth government so as to become a world leader in recycling and drastically reduce single-use plastics, which is absolutely vital to our future.

Sustainable Australia welcomes a $540 million commitment to develop six dedicated renewable energy zones from central Victoria to the far east coast in an effort to accommodate new large-scale solar and wind projects, paving the path towards the target of 50 per cent renewables by 2030. We congratulate the government on this, but we would like to see a higher renewable energy target of 63 per cent by 2030, in line with the recommendations of the Combet report.

The government’s commitment to renewable energy is exactly what we need to keep our economy strong and secure for decades to come. A transition from fossil fuels to clean energy and an increased reliance on recycling will in itself create new industries and new jobs and protect the beauty and health of our state. So I do note and applaud these investments by the government. There are so many benefits of clean energy and recycling that I could only scrape the surface if I were to list them all in this contribution.

These massive increases in population, though, have brought about increased waste and carbon emissions and air pollution. This government up to now has shown no commitment to reducing air pollution in Melbourne. I welcome the government’s allocation of $45 million to encourage electric car use, some of which will go towards charging stations. However, I join with the electric car industry and Mr Meddick in condemning the government’s move to start charging electric car owners road user fees. It is time to be encouraging electric car use; it reduces air pollution. I have heard government ministers speak about creating a level playing field—that old chestnut—between electric vehicles and petrol and diesel vehicles. We do not want a level playing field; we want to tackle climate change. We need to transition to renewable energy. Encouraging, not discouraging, electric vehicles is one way to do this. The government seems to have fallen for ideological nonsense coming from the opponents of climate change action. I am not aware of any other country taking this action.

One area the government has not managed well in the past is the provision of public and social housing. This budget’s increased funding for social housing is to be welcomed, and in fact we have been calling for such, but unfortunately there are some disappointing aspects to this program. The first is the government’s ideological unwillingness to provide significant amounts of public housing. Instead it prefers social housing. There is no clear commitment to public housing. Unfortunately, only 75 per cent of this housing will go to those in greatest need. These developments require public assets to be handed over to developers for construction. The government has welcomed massive increases in population but clearly failed to house its people.

Next is the fast-tracking of these developments, which will be removed from councils’ planning consideration, thus disempowering local residents in expressing concerns even further. This makes communities fear that the type of construction will be high rise, high density and forced into pockets of suburban areas, rather than medium density or single shared dwellings scattered throughout the suburbs. Substandard and inappropriate housing will again appear. Developers will have more say than councils.

The truth of the Big Housing Build is that the government does not trust itself to maintain and administer public housing and be accountable to the Parliament for doing so. Instead it is handing over vast amounts of housing to community housing groups and property developers. We have had a housing crisis for low-income Victorians in Melbourne for most of this century, yet only when there is a dip in the construction industry due to the halting of overseas migration do we see the government address this housing crisis. This government governs first and foremost for the construction and property sector. As is often the case, the developer tail is wagging the planning dog. We have seen it doing so at the Flower Drum restaurant and other places, and I welcome what Mr Meddick said—what I have tried to raise in this place before—about developer contributions to and developer corruption of government.

Another vital part of our future is the maintenance and growth of a healthy, functioning democracy—on the same thread. Any objective observer of IBAC proceedings of late would conclude that corruption is an ongoing problem in Victoria and further funding for a leading organisation in tackling it should be given. Essential to our democracy is the provision of adequate funding for both the Victorian Ombudsman and IBAC, and just this week the Victorian Ombudsman also expressed disappointment at the lack of funding for her organisation in the budget. The government did increase funding for the Ombudsman but not enough to meet the operating costs of the organisation, whose workload has increased significantly due to the same cultural corruption in Victoria exposed by IBAC. If this starvation is intentional, it is shameful. Certainly when it comes to tackling corruption this government has not shown any interest in job creation.

The interests of this generation and future generations of Victorians lie in moving away from the Ponzi population model of never-ending growth with a narrow and vulnerable economy to a sustainable, more diverse, more self-sufficient model with a larger role for manufacturing, education, training and skills, renewable energy and the circular economy. In the case of this budget plan bigger is not better.

Sitting suspended 1.58 pm until 3.03 pm.

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (15:03): It is an honour to make a contribution in support of the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. I want to congratulate the Victorian Treasurer for delivering a budget that is one of the most crucial budgets. This budget will be used to create great opportunities for Victorians. Recovery is at the heart of this budget. This budget delivers on the key investments that will help Victoria get up and running again, make our communities recover and give opportunities to all Victorians.

This year has been like no other. Victoria faced devastating bushfires at the beginning of the year that impacted regional communities. We all then faced the once-in-100-year pandemic, a global novel coronavirus that brought the world to a standstill. But now, as the year 2020 ends, we begin our state’s recovery. Victorian people are at the heart of this recovery effort. People have sacrificed a lot, and I think this is the time to make sure that no more sacrifices are needed. This budget will make sure that we protect and create jobs, look after families, take care of Victorians’ loved ones and build strong and connected communities.

We can see how bad things have got for the rest of the world. We are lucky to be in Victoria, where we have managed to control the virus. Many countries in the world are struggling. Many thought that Victoria would be in a similar place, but we are not. The road map that we presented helped us to get out of the pandemic. Now the world is taking inspiration from us. It is the determination of the Victorian people who believed in the government’s plan that helped us achieve this great victory over the virus. This year has been rough, but the scars from this battle need to heal now. For many people this battle was too difficult, and we acknowledge this. I know that this budget will bring some ease to each and every one of us. Many people have gotten in touch with me during this pandemic. I have heard many stories of their hardships and struggles. The small business community has struggled very much. They have made huge sacrifices, but we have to be optimistic and positive. We have to put 2020 behind us safely.

This budget kicks off the economic recovery by bringing a phenomenal jobs plan. We aim to create 400 000 new jobs by 2025, with an interim goal of 200 000 new jobs by 2022. We will be investing $1 billion in TAFE and training to give Victorians the skills to get back to work, including providing 80 000 new training places over four years. This will make sure that Victorians are trained to tackle the challenges of today and the future. The expanded workforce of apprentices, trainees and engineering students will also be supported by the Victorian government’s Big Build program. The Big Housing Build package will also play an important role in using these skilled people. We are providing a $6.6 billion Big Housing Build package, including $5.3 billion to build more than 12 000 new social and affordable houses. This program will be supporting around 10 000 jobs per year over the next four years. This investment is very important and vital to Victoria. This investment will provide opportunities, homes and jobs. It is an all-in-one.

I am a member of the Legal and Social Issues Committee of this house. We had the inquiry into homelessness, so I have heard about the immense struggle someone who becomes homeless goes through. The pandemic has revealed to us some issues related to insecure work. Victorians have relied on insecure work for many years, risking their health and wellbeing. That is why we are developing a new secure work pilot scheme to provide up to five days of sick and carers pay at the national minimum wage for casual or insecure workers in priority industries.

Victorian businesses are also to be supported. Victorian small businesses are the backbone of our economy. The Victorian budget 2020–21 invests $1.5 billion in new tax relief for Victorian businesses and families. This builds on the government’s existing support, with a total of more than $3.5 billion in tax and fees relief to Victorian workers, businesses and households to help them through the pandemic and recovery. This includes $836 million for the new jobs tax credit to encourage small and medium businesses to increase employment by rehiring staff, restoring staff hours or supporting new jobs as they recover from the effects of the pandemic. Small businesses have gone through a lot, and they do not need to worry about cash flow at this time.

Furthermore, we want to give support to the brightest minds in Victoria. Through the groundbreaking $2 billion Breakthrough Victoria Fund, Victorian minds will help make world-changing discoveries which will change and save lives while driving Victoria towards the future. The $2 billion investment will create more than 15 700 jobs and deliver the best research and innovative solutions. Our world-leading scientists, researchers and innovators need to be backed up. Being a former cancer researcher in Victoria, I am extremely delighted to know that this funding will support many researchers and it will be very beneficial for generations to come. The best minds can now make effective medicines and treatments faster without worrying about the finances.

Regional small businesses and the hospitality industry are very important parts of the Victorian economy. The $465 million Victorian tourism recovery package will support local jobs and make sure that Victorian families experience the best of Victoria. The budget will provide up to 120 000 vouchers each worth $200 to entice people to explore regional Victoria. I look forward to visiting regional Victoria once we take a break during Christmas time.

The 2020–21 budget also invests $1.9 billion in schools, including 123 school upgrades and $389 million to support improvements at 39 specialist schools across Victoria. The Victorian budget 2020–21 will deliver a $773.8 million investment in early childhood education, including $169.6 million to help cover the cost of kinder and give our children the very best start in life. We will continue to roll out the landmark three-year-old kinder reform through a $302 million investment. This will be expanded to Western Metropolitan Region in 2022 along with the rest of the state.

We are also encouraging Victorians to get back into the property market. We are waiving up to 50 per cent of stamp duty for eligible homes till next June. We need to support people to get into the property market. We need to invest and get the economy running.

This budget delivers $9 billion for our health system, including to maintain capacity in our health system as hospitals return to COVID normal. The budget delivers $869 million in mental health initiatives, including more acute mental health beds.

We are continuing our unprecedented overhaul of our state’s transport network, including $2.2 billion for initial works on the Suburban Rail Loop, $2 billion towards the Geelong fast rail and $4 billion to upgrade and support our regional rail network.

This is the budget to repair the damage, to heal the pain and to make us stronger than ever before. We cannot fix the economy until we have addressed the public health crisis. We are now in a better position than so many jurisdictions right around the world, and our economy can return to a position of growth. This budget gives it the kickstart it needs. This budget will bring hope to the Victorian people as it will start the economic recovery of our state. It will mean jobs, opportunities and recovery for Victorian people. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:12): I rise to speak to the budget. I have been listening to the debate and listening to various members’ contributions, and I want to commend Mr Rich-Phillips in relation to his contribution to the house that outlined many issues around this current budget. What happened on Monday with Standard & Poor’s, that downgrade of Victoria’s AAA credit rating not just by one level but by two levels, says a huge amount about where Victoria’s financial position is. I think it is very concerning that the $155 billion debt that Victoria now has is going to be a debt that will be carried by generations.

As I said, I have been listening to the debate, and I have been listening to government members say that this is repairing the budget and it is addressing the public health crisis. Can I remind members that the public health crisis that we have had in Victoria was brought on by the incompetence and mismanagement of the Andrews government. The hotel quarantine breaches and the catastrophic failings in contact tracing led to a health crisis across the state. It was a health crisis that tragically saw the loss of over 800 Victorian lives, devastatingly for those families, and others have also had family members that have taken their lives because of the mental health crisis. There have been job losses—hundreds of thousands of job losses—and tens of thousands of businesses have been lost. Those are the real figures, yet the government just bandies around this massive spending budget. To think that they have fixed everything, that they have repaired everything—they have not. They have actually saddled future generations with this debt, and they have absolutely no plan for how to repay the debt.

That just says everything about Labor and how they manage money. They do not really understand it. They do not have much capacity to understand it because none of them have really worked in business at all. They come out of the union movement but not out of business. They do not understand how money is created. They say all of these things about small business being the backbone of the economy, but it means nothing, it is meaningless because all they know is how to borrow and spend, borrow and spend, and we have seen it before. We have all been here before—actually some of you have not been because you are too young. Maybe that is why you are a bit flippant about it. You were probably around in the 1990s—no, I am being very ungenerous; I do not think you were, Acting President Gepp. You are too young. But I was. I remember the high interest rates and the debt and deficit that was there and how it took years to pay off. Admittedly, we do not have those high interest rates, I grant that, but the debt is so big, and that there is no plan to pay it back is a concerning feature of this budget.

Can I also say that when you look at what the government did hand down on 24 November, in terms of capital projects there was no budget paper 4. There was no ability for the Victorian people to understand those projects, where they were, how much money was owing and how much they had blown out by, and that is also symptomatic of this government, which just does not like any form of transparency or scrutiny. Again, we have seen that through the COVID crisis—the lack of scrutiny and transparency that the government has been willing to undergo. I think that is very alarming because if you have got nothing to hide, why wouldn’t you release that budget paper 4? Why wouldn’t you tell Victorians, ‘These are our projects; these ones have blown out, and this is where we expect the money to be coming from, how it will be spent and over what period of time and this is how those projects will be delivered and when they will be delivered’? There is none of that.

What we do know is that Labor cannot manage projects and they cannot manage money. We have had so many projects blow out, time and time again, under Labor. They have been in power for almost two decades—over the last 20-odd years they have been in power for nearly all that time—and again we have seen these growing budget blowouts in so many projects that they have touched. Prior to the coalition coming into government in 2010 it was the ICT projects. Tens of billions of dollars were blown out on those projects—Myki, HealthSMART and the like. Now we have got these projects like the West Gate Tunnel, massive projects that are just blowing out and have so many issues. The tunnel is plagued by issues such as the toxic soil. Mr Finn has certainly been vocal on behalf of his community of Western Metropolitan Region, which has been taken for granted by the Andrews Labor government.

If I could just move on to the concerns I have around health in relation to the health spend. As we know, in the budget, yes, the government have been spending like drunken sailors trying to make up for their absolutely woeful management of the COVID response and the shocking restrictions and lockdowns that we all had to suffer. Of course out of that there was the suspension of elective surgery back in early April, but prior to that Victoria’s elective surgery waitlist was at record levels. In the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearings last week it was confirmed that Victoria’s elective surgery waitlist will not go back to those pre-COVID suspension levels of March until way into the future. It will be years—it is at least two years away. Disgracefully, in the budget the targets have not been increased, so the government might say, ‘Well, yes, we’re putting in this additional money, and we’re going to do various blitzes to get the elective surgery rates down’, but in actual fact those targets are exactly the same. So they are not trying to bring down anything; they are just trying to cover up their woeful mismanagement and failing of Victoria’s health system. Who suffers in that circumstance? It is the Victorian patient who is waiting on that elective surgery waitlist or dental waitlist or waiting to get in to see a specialist.

These are people who are in pain. Their health conditions are worsening—sometimes they are becoming life threatening—and those outcomes are going to be worse. Those Victorians who are on those waitlists, their health outcomes are going to be much, much worse, and that is a direct result of the mismanagement of COVID and the inability of this government to actually undertake what they should be able to do, and that is provide a health system to all Victorians.

They are concentrating on inner-city Melbourne. I was pleased when there was a petition put to this house this morning asking for additional funding for bush nursing centres. Bush nursing centres are spread out across Victoria in very remote areas and see tens of thousands of occasions of service each year and do an enormous amount of work—and they did in the bushfires last year. I want to put on record again the extraordinary work of one bush nursing service—but there were many that helped in Gippsland and in the north-east—the Walwa bush nursing service, who did an extraordinary job not just with the logistics through the bushfires but with the follow-up. It is the mental health of the community and it is the support provided to that community.

So not only have we got the physical health issues that are very, very real for so many Victorians, but we have got mental health issues that are absolutely massive for tens and tens of thousands of Victorians who, again, cannot get in to see a specialist and cannot get in to get the treatment and the support and the counselling that they need—and much, much more needs to be done on that. You cannot sit behind a royal commission when there are people, Victorians, who have suffered a huge amount throughout the restrictions and lockdown and who have slipped into increased drug intake and alcohol intake. That is going to also be exacerbated I think in the very short term.

I could say a lot more, but I know others want to speak on the budget. Can I say I think it is incredibly concerning that Victoria has got such a massive debt that will have to be paid by future generations, that this government has no plan whatsoever on how to pay down this debt and that the job numbers in Victoria are nothing to crow about. In fact there has been less growth in those job advertisements, and we are losing investment, we are losing opportunity here in Victoria, because of the failures of the Andrews Labor government.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:23): I rise to speak to the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020, which provides the authority for payment to deliver the 2020–21 budget. Firstly, I am delighted by the announcements regarding around 30 schools in my electorate about upgrades or new schools, which are much needed. I am also delighted to see the announcements for four hospitals in Western Metropolitan Region, the additional acute mental health beds at Sunshine Hospital, the future expansion of Werribee Mercy Hospital, a new community hospital for Point Cook and the new Melton hospital—as I have advocated in this house for. Overall I have to say there were not too many surprises, because the government has been doing announcements since the beginning of this November. But where the surprises came from was the detail: when the money was going to be spent.

Now, let us start with schools. On a total estimated—estimated—investment for education and training, on asset initiatives, only 7.9 per cent is being spent in this financial year. That is right—7.9 per cent. But that ramps up over the next year to a whopping 24.5 per cent, and then it goes into a whopping 54.9 per cent in the 2022–23 budget, just in time for an election—surprise! So I can only assume that the Footscray Primary School, which has been promised $18 million, and the Footscray secondary college, which has been promised $25 million, will be waiting for a while to see any money.

Then we have the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. In the coming year they will spend $22.3 million on asset initiatives; that is 12.7 per cent. And again that ramps up to 32 per cent the following year, and then—election year—33.7 per cent.

Let us move on to Department of Health and Human Services. I must say again I am pleased to see that there is more of the budget being spent in the first two years. However, let us talk about Melton hospital—only $100 000 this year. I am not sure what is meant to happen with $100 000. Then it increases in the following two years, so Melton will be waiting until at least 2023 for their hospital.

Now, the population in Melbourne’s west is booming, and the City of Melton is one of those areas in my heart, serving both metropolitan and regional areas. The nearest major hospitals for those residents in the City of Melton are Western Health’s hospitals in Footscray, more than 30 kilometres away, and Sunshine. More locally, Bacchus Marsh hospital is struggling. Emergencies are diverted to Ballarat or Sunshine, and the travel time is over 30 minutes, followed by significant wait times on arrival. The previous state budget committed $2.4 million for the development of a business case for a new hospital, and it is disappointing to say the least that funding for the land acquisition has not been included in this year’s budget. At no other time has it been more important to provide a hospital to the people of this area, an area that has been highly affected by COVID-19 and no doubt has survivors needing ongoing treatment for the chronic illnesses that they will be left with. It would also have provided jobs for my community where they live, aiding in the recovery effort. So I was surprised to see funding has been given for a new community hospital in Point Cook but no funds appear to have been allocated over the coming years for construction of those community hospitals. And I must say, we do not have the land in Point Cook; let us just keep that in mind.

Now, let us move to the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions. It is good to see that most of their output initiatives are planned for this financial year. Some $32.8 million will go to elite sporting clubs—St Kilda, Essendon, North Melbourne, Richmond and the Western Bulldogs. And obviously I am very pleased to see Essendon, which is in Western Metropolitan, as well as the Western Bulldogs, being able to get that money for their elite sporting clubs. You all know that I am an avid Bulldogs supporter, a big supporter of women’s football and my wonderful women’s Bulldogs team—go the Dogs! But grassroots community clubs are essential to our recovery from COVID. They are essential to rebuilding our community spirit. AFL clubs have access to other sources for funds, and they have access to other fundraising avenues. They can borrow from banks. Community clubs are limited to holding small fundraising events.

They do not have the infrastructure that the AFL clubs have, and they rely on mums and dads for their fundraising. From what I can see, only $135 million has been allocated to community sports through either grant programs or local councils, and $129 million of that is through the community sports infrastructure stimulus program and the various local sport and infrastructure funds.

Now, let us just pick one of the councils in my area. How about Maribyrnong? They have so many sporting fields.

Mr Finn: Do you know anything about Maribyrnong?

Dr CUMMING: A little bit, Mr Finn. They want to redevelop the RecWest facility in West Footscray. RecWest, or West Footscray YMCA, is a community centre for all people. RecWest facilities have a very wide range of programs for young adults with disabilities, senior groups and preschoolers. I won a netball championship there once, Mr Finn, when I was a young, young netballer.

Mr Finn: Last year, wasn’t it?

Dr CUMMING: Just last year. No. It offers multicultural activities; a vibrant range of indoor sport and fitness programs, such as yoga; mothers groups; social functions, like ballroom dancing; and much, much more. The Maribyrnong council and the state government predict that the population in Maribyrnong will grow by 68 per cent by 2041, and RecWest expects increased precinct participation of up to 150 000 people per year. Now, the problem is that this is falling apart. RecWest was built in 1953, and a new wing was added in the 1970s, which I had the benefit of. That is nearly 50 years ago, and it desperately needs rebuilding. The community has been consulted and a concept plan and a master plan have been created, and a new RecWest will also support the three primary schools and the new Barkly Street secondary campus in Footscray—but there is no funding.

In 2018, according to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, Maribyrnong citizens spent $57 million on the area’s 471 pokies. Based on the fact that the pokies generate approximately 40 per cent in tax, the state government has earned nearly $23 million from Maribyrnong pokies this year alone. One year’s pokies tax income would more than rebuild RecWest facilities, yet the government believes that the City of Maribyrnong will have to borrow the money to build it. That was stated in the letter that I received from the Treasurer in June. Sorry, no, not the Treasurer; it was from the Premier. I stand corrected. It was the Premier who sent me that letter in June to say that the City of Maribyrnong can go borrow the money—very disappointing. If we go back to funds in this budget and if we divide the $129 million allocated to the 79 councils, or local government areas, that is just $1.6 million for each council. Now, that really is not going to go a long way towards building RecWest. RecWest needs $20 million. And that is just one council out of the 79.

Now, there are sporting club grants, and that budget document states that there will be funds for up to 3000 clubs for uniforms and equipment. That is $2000 each—$2000—so mums and dads will be out selling sausages at Bunnings or raising funds from within their numbers to keep the clubs going. I am not against elite sporting clubs, such as my wonderful Western Bulldogs or such as Essendon in my area, but this is an unusual year, one like no other. Our kids have gone without sport for most of this year. Those AFL clubs rely on grassroots clubs to be their feeders. All sporting clubs rely on that grassroots ability of those kids, especially in my Western Metropolitan Region, where talented children have a pathway to the Olympics, have a pathway to a future in soccer—maybe even to breakdancing at the Olympics. But without those buildings being upgraded and looked after they do not have anywhere to go. Respectfully, there are many others within my community, especially the African community, that are looking for a soccer facility of their own.

However, the arts industry really benefits from this budget. There is a massive investment in the transformation of the arts precinct. It is $1.4 billion to be exact. That includes $972.8 million—let me say that again, $972.8 million—that will be spent in 2024. I think we are in 2020. Again, most of the asset expenditure is not next year or the year after, or in the following two years, but just in time for the election. You cannot say that we are going for recovery. Is the recovery in two years time?

I was pleased to hear the announcements for the new Wyndham law court as well as the redevelopment of the Sunshine courts—long overdue—in my area. My area has been crying out for investment in justice for many a year. But if we look at the court services, Wyndham gets $6.5 million this year, $14.2 million next year and then it ramps up to $113 million the next year, and then $138 million after that, so the government is even predicting after the election. Similarly, Sunshine gets $500 000 this year, and that ramps up over the future years, but it is different; it is only $26.8 million announced. Again, the total estimated investment for asset initiatives is only 9.9 per cent for this year, 7.5 per cent next year and then, guess what? Before the election, $38.26 million, and that is almost 44 per cent.

Under Parliament we fund IBAC, and another interesting item obviously is that despite IBAC stating that they need additional funds to enable them to carry out their current investigations, over the next three years they will receive the lowest amount of funding this year, which is $300 000—and we spoke about that on Tuesday—nearly $8 million the following year and even more after that. Coincidence—an election. There are currently three government ministers being investigated. That is interesting, I guess.

As I said earlier, there are no great surprises in this budget, but a lot is not there; there are lots of things missing. We do not have any funding for the port rail shuttle, six years after it was first announced and allocated funds. In the meantime, trucks will continue to travel through the inner west, an area that has record levels of asthma sufferers. We do not have any funds for other rail freight investment to help the farmers and the producers get goods to market. School students seeking mental health support have missed out, with only $14 million allocated despite us facing what is probably the worst youth mental health crisis in our history. Small businesses with no staff have missed out. In Western Metropolitan Region the level crossings at Macauley Road in Kensington, Puckle Street in Moonee Ponds and Calder Park Drive in Calder Park also missed out, and let us add Yarraville—why not? The extension of tram services in the west from Docklands to Footscray and from West Maribyrnong to Avondale Heights missed out. That was not there.

We were meant to have a budget that got us back on our feet and gave the community hope and that would have kickstarted our business community. We have a budget that totally ignored all the work done by local government across the state and their COVID recovery plans. I have seen all those COVID recovery plans. I have stated in this house that you could have just grabbed all that. They are the community initiatives. They are the things that the community has been consulted on and want as their priorities. But no, they are not in here, and if they are, they are just the little baby things. And you know what? Those communities really understand what the priorities are. Those councils understand those needs, and I can only hope that this government in the future listens to its local communities and does not continue this aspect of throwing a budget at them, that there is genuine community consultation, that grassroots priorities get fed into the budget—and not estimates, not guesstimates, but actual proper understanding of what things cost and keeping to a budget, because that is what local governments do. They would never throw around estimates, and this whole budget is estimates, which I am always disappointed to see, because local councils understand that a budget is like their household budget. With their rates base they look at every dollar, making sure of the priorities and that it goes in the right spots that the community actually have been consulted on. Then they are actually funded, and if they can find savings, they go and find savings. They run on an oily rag, but this government is quite happy to have estimates—guesstimates. It is very disappointing at a time when every dollar counts.

And for the community’s priorities, such as homelessness, such as mental health, they do sound like big figures to my community when you say millions, but when you actually look at the detail and then you divide it up, there is not much. Where is the funding for local government and their priorities and those community priorities? They are picking up more work through their environmental health teams, their local laws, implementing COVID-safe dining options and many other things, but I do not see it here in any of the detail. There is not much detail to be had, apart from a big, fat lot of press releases. For funding for community-based programs, which is much needed, which has been a priority through the tracking and tracing inquiries, we must instead look at local health-based initiatives. We need to fund that; otherwise our next health crisis we will not be prepared for, and I truly do not see that detail. So I do hope that this government look at the community’s priorities, they listen to the community’s priorities and they do not feel that they can just thrust things onto the community, because we understand what is needed.

It would be great if this government understood that they need to provide a budget for recovery in the next 12 months—almost immediately—rather than this budget, which is for an election. Sadly—correct me if I am wrong—that is what I can see. It is not dissimilar to all the pressers that I have watched throughout this crisis. It has been treated like—I do not know—an election campaign or a media thing rather than a health crisis. Urgency is needed, and urgency is needed in the next 12 months, when people have been suffering for the last six.

Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (15:46): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020, better described as the Victorian budget 2020–21. The pandemic has been a stark reminder of the importance of putting people first. It has also exposed many of the weaknesses in our society and our economy at large. This budget sets out to address some of those weaknesses while embarking on a deliberately ambitious post-pandemic recovery. This budget has been discussed and analysed in detail not only in this place but also in the wider community.

I would like to use my time here today to highlight some of the initiatives, budget measures and investments announced for my electorate of Southern Metropolitan Region. A cornerstone of the plan for economic recovery is delivering the biggest investment in inclusive education in our state’s history. The investment includes $9.68 million for Belmore School, located in the suburb of Balwyn, and $10 million for the Victorian College for the Deaf, located on St Kilda Road. This funding will help upgrade and modernise both schools, ensuring the Southern Metropolitan Region is well equipped to provide accessible education for people with disabilities.

The Victorian government is investing a further $1.6 billion as part of the disability inclusion package to transform support for students with disability and enable access for students who may have previously been ineligible for targeted support. This will almost double the number of students receiving extra support to 55 000 students and create almost 2000 jobs across the state by 2025, benefiting over 60 schools in my electorate alone.

This budget in fact delivers the single biggest investment ever in our schools through the $1.9 billion building blitz supporting the modernisation and construction of many schools across Victoria. This includes several schools in my electorate, including Beaumaris Secondary College and Sandringham College, which will be receiving $19 million and $10 million respectively. This latest investment will support over 6000 jobs in construction and supply and bring the total investment in Victorian schools to more than $9 billion over the last five years.

The budget also builds on the Victorian government’s record transport investment, with more than $10 billion for better roads and public transport, which will help create strong, connected communities. It invests $2.2 billion to kick off initial early works on stage 1 of the Suburban Rail Loop running between Cheltenham and Box Hill. Three of the six stations that are part of this stage are located in my electorate in this city- and state-shaping project which will help revive communities and precincts located in their vicinity. The project will support over 20 000 jobs during construction and take thousands of cars off our major roads, delivering a quicker and more accessible commute for everyone in the Southern Metropolitan Region.

I guess the Big Housing Build is an important part of this budget. It is also a big part of our equity program. This year has shown us just how much a home matters to people. It has shown us that far too many Victorians are still missing out on the safety and security that a home affords us. That is why this budget delivers the state’s biggest ever investment in public, community and affordable housing. I am pleased to note that the cities of Boroondara and Port Phillip have been identified as priority local government areas for the Big Housing Build. It will give thousands of Victorians the security and stability of a home while supporting 10 000 jobs on average per year over the next four years and increasing economic activity across our state.

In addition to the record investments in education, jobs and infrastructure, I am particularly excited by the $1.4 billion investment to transform Melbourne’s art precinct, located in my electorate. The investment will permanently cement our state’s reputation as Australia’s cultural capital, beside supporting over 5000 jobs in construction and more than 200 new ongoing jobs in the creative arts. The development of the new gallery, NGV Contemporary, will bring visitors from interstate and overseas to replenish the tourism economy which is so crucial to Southern Metropolitan Region. The creation of an 18 000-square-metre immersive public garden will also provide families in the electorate a new public place to enjoy.

There is so much more to like about this budget, and I know many of the other speakers have touched upon other commitments, but it would be remiss to not mention one of the commitments made in my electorate to assist Very Special Kids—to build a new world-class eight-bed paediatric respite facility in Malvern, ensuring children with life-limiting illnesses and their families have improved care.

The budget includes many other investments critical to the future of our state. Some have already been discussed in this place, such as some of the significant financial commitments, like the 100 new trams that are going to be made in Victoria for Victorians—next-generation accessible. Some are financially not so significant but address some of the structural inequalities in our society, such as the $5 million towards the two-year pilot that looks towards providing sick and carers leave for those in insecure employment, such as casuals. It is really significant—financially not as large, at $5 million, but I think it could be defining for many Victorians.

After a challenging year, the budget is a triumph of hope over fear. Securing the health and safety of the community was always our first priority during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Building a Victoria that is rich with new ideas, opportunity and excitement about the future is our next job. Through this budget we are getting on with building the Victoria we deserve by putting people first. I commend to the bill to the house.

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:52): I rise to speak on the budget and cannot help but remark that whilst there might be some around who are very pleased with the budget, future generations will not be, because the one thing that this budget leaves more than anything else is a huge debt. And that debt will have to be paid one day. This is like somebody, perhaps a child, who has just discovered a wonderful new device called a credit card and has run amok with that credit card without any care as to who will have to pay the bill. The tragedy is that at some stage somebody will have to pay the bill, and that will be our kids, that will be our grandkids and maybe it will be our great grandkids. At this point in time, in four years time we will have a debt of somewhere in the vicinity of $155 billion—$155 000 million. That is an extraordinary legacy to leave future generations in this state.

Now, Daniel Andrews will say, ‘I’ve done this’ and ‘I’ve done that’ and ‘I’ve spent this’. That is the good old-fashioned socialist way of doing things—you measure success by how much you have spent. You do not measure success by what you have achieved; you measure success by what you have spent. And if that is his measure, well, he has been very successful, because the budget has been, as Rex Hunt would have said, ‘blown to the scheissenhausen’. And that is very, very unfortunate, as I say, for generations to come. I see Mr Leane over there readily agreeing with my comments.

The other thing about this budget is that it is almost entirely dependent on government spending for our recovery. Now, again, good old-fashioned socialist economics does not recognise that if we are to have a sustainable and a vigorous recovery, the only way that is going to happen is with a strong business sector—a strong private sector. That is the only way that it is going to happen, because governments do not create wealth; governments draw wealth. And, well, it is just around and around—talk about your circular economy! Around and around you go. We take the money to pay you, and around and around you go.

The only way that we are going to have a strong, viable and sustainable state in the future is for businesses, particularly small businesses, to be strong, to be vibrant and to be exciting. That is the way of the future, and if we are serious about Victoria’s future but we ignore small business then the whole thing is just a joke—it just will not happen. Unfortunately, it is spending vast sums of money, putting us in debt, as I say, for generations to come without accepting the importance of business in employment. As I have said to this house on a number of occasions, you cannot have union members if you do not have jobs. I see Ms Terpstra over there has cocked her head and looks most interested when I mention union members. But that is the fact of the matter: without employers you do not have employees, and without employees you do not have union members. Members opposite might like to keep that in mind.

I will just mention briefly that the west is carrying a large cost of this budget in the toxic soil dump that is coming our way, perhaps to Bacchus Marsh—that is a matter of conjecture, I note, at the moment, with the EPA having done a somersault this week—but certainly to Ravenhall, which has copped more than its fair share over the years. It seems that that area will be blessed, if I can use that term, with more toxic soil. I note that today I have received another letter from the mayor of Melton expressing her very strong opposition to the dumping of toxic soil at Ravenhall. Of course the other possibility—probability in fact—is that that soil will be dumped near Sunbury Road between Bulla and Sunbury. That is just appalling for locals, and I speak from personal experience there.

This is a budget that is remarkable in the legacy that it will leave Victorians. We will be paying this debt for generations to come. In many years, long after I have left and we have all left this Parliament, we will still be paying this debt. Victorians will still be paying this debt when I have been long in the ground. Victorians will still be paying this debt, and we can look back and say, ‘Thank you, Daniel Andrews—thank you for nothing’.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:58): I rise to speak to the Appropriation (2020–21) Bill 2020, and in doing so I would like to respond to the state budget. This year has been quite a year. It has been one of grief, isolation and emotional and economic hardship but also of collective resilience, and it is a year that has been described as unprecedented on an unprecedented number of occasions. So fittingly this is a pretty unprecedented budget.

Never before have we seen stimulus on this scale, but equally never before have we had the opportunity to benefit from record-breaking low interest rates and hopefully jolt the Victorian economy back to life. It is an aggressive program of borrowing and spending, but I believe with good reason. It is a strategy that leading economists and the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia have endorsed and a path that is being walked, although perhaps a little less stridently, by our federal government and many other jurisdictions here and abroad. It is reasonable that the government is using its balance sheet to protect the balance sheets of Victorian households and small businesses. In my view it is a sound strategy, given the proximity of a vaccine—and the chief health officer told us just this week that he expects a vaccine to be available in Victoria in March 2021. But as we speak, the vaccine is being made available and being administered across the UK and across Canada, and we know for sure that a vaccine will be a trampoline for our economy.

Noting of course that our national economy has emerged from recession, and as Australian states less affected by COVID are already bouncing back, I am pretty confident that we will be right behind them as we move out of our own COVID restrictions. I honestly think that there is genuine cause for optimism, but it does not mean that it is going to be easy. The City of Melbourne, in my electorate, faces particular challenges, with our city offices having been empty for so long and to remain at reduced capacity for the foreseeable future. I genuinely feel for all of those ancillary businesses—the cafes, the restaurants, the shops and the bars—that are so reliant on a busy and bustling city full of workers. If we are not careful, Melbourne could lose its character, its heartbeat, and I urge this government to do everything they can to protect it, to protect the heartbeat of our city. There is $17 million in the budget for Save Our Scene. That is the kind of investment we are looking for, and I thank the government for that start.

This is a budget that delivers on many of my budget submissions and many Reason policies. In February this year the Parliament debated my bill to extend the out-of-home care leaving age to 21, and I was extremely pleased to see that in this budget the government has delivered on the promise they made at the time to fund this important change for vulnerable children in this state. Eleven thousand young Victorians live in out-of-home care because they are at risk of harm or neglect in their homes. Most of these kids are in foster care, but without the funding delivered in this budget they would have left their care at the age of 18. That is around 800 young people every year, and while 85 per cent of 18 to 21-year-olds in Victoria are still living at home with either one or both parents, our foster kids, who are vulnerable and may have already experienced significant trauma in their young lives, had to go it alone. It is no surprise that within 12 months of leaving care 50 per cent of our care leavers were homeless, in jail or unemployed. Those statistics change markedly if you extend the care-leaving age to 21, and that is what the budget delivers—$75 million to extend the Home Stretch program. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Paul McDonald from Anglicare in particular for his hard work in this space. This is a win for reasoned, evidence-based policy, and I am pleased that I have played some role in changing the lives of so many young people.

In October I am sure I was not alone but I was publicly very disappointed in the federal budget in that it failed women and, as my colleague Ms Watt pointed out, women were most affected by COVID, more affected than our male colleagues, but then if you take that down to, as Ms Watt very eloquently put and recognised, particularly young women. At the time of the federal budget we called on the Victorian Treasurer to pick up those pieces because women carried this country through the first stage of the pandemic. It was our teachers, our nurses, our aged-care professionals.

It is why in our budget submission we called it a caring budget. We focused on women, with priorities around social housing, community mental health, family violence and alcohol and other drug specialists, and this budget has delivered in many of those areas—$250 million for women, including $150 million for wage subsidies for over 6000 women, at least one-third of whom are 45 and older. We know that older women are the fastest growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness, so this is so important. That leads onto the $5.3 billion to be spent on building 12 000 new public housing homes in the next four years, 1000 of which will be reserved for Indigenous Australians, 1000 for victims of family violence and 2000 for people with mental illness.

This is a huge but necessary investment and, as many speakers before have said, well overdue. As the chair of the homelessness inquiry, I know that the public housing waitlists are somewhere around 100 000, so we know we have got more work to do. But this is a good start, and it is the first time we have seen this type of investment in social housing for a very long time.

I would like to reiterate some of the points that my colleague Mr Meddick made, also linked to homelessness and housing affordability. I thank Prosper Australia for providing these statistics. It found that 69 000 properties were likely to be vacant in Victoria. Of these, 24 000 properties consumed zero litres of water per day on average over a 12-month period. So they are either very dirty and very dehydrated people, or those houses are empty. I suspect it is the latter. Now, we instituted a vacant residential property tax. I remember debating it in this house. I understand that only 587 properties in Victoria have been declared vacant, yet we see 24 000 properties have used zero water for 12 months. So I would suggest to the Treasurer and to Treasury that there is significant lost revenue available here and if the enforcement mechanisms were improved, we may in fact incentivise a whole lot of rental stock back onto the market.

I was also thrilled to see the government adopt a unique policy of Reason’s that we had pushed for in 2018, and that was to fund startups in exchange for an equity share. It is a win-win that makes so much more sense than just giving away grants. The prospect of a return on investment that could be used to grow other Victorian startups and small businesses is something that just makes so much sense to me. This is the government literally investing in small businesses, and hopefully recouping some benefit from the success of those businesses. This is where we will find the next Victorian unicorn.

There is almost $800 million for clean power and a further $1.6 billion to build renewable energy hubs across the state, with $108 million to help Victoria prepare for other clean energy projects, including an offshore wind generator. It is forward-looking investment. It is what we should be doing and it is what we must be doing. We need to address the existential threat of climate change. The forecasts are compelling and frightening, the scenarios are devastating. We cannot forget for a second that the most important question of our time is how to restore a safe climate, and we have to do it now. This will be a fast transition to zero emissions. This budget assists us in doing that.

Spending more than $8 billion in regional Victoria is positive, and I know my colleague in the lower house Ms Cupper has been successfully lobbying the government for nearly $150 million in projects across Mildura and the Mallee. There are, however, some missed opportunities too. Despite investments in mental health, loneliness has been neglected again. We know from Harvard University that the health outcomes of social isolation and loneliness are worse than obesity and have the same impact on mortality as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. COVID lockdowns can only have magnified the issue for so many Victorians, and we just cannot keep ignoring this fact. I would also have welcomed greater spending on early intervention around mental health. I do acknowledge that the government has invested substantially in alcohol and other drug services. We are seeing more treatment beds being built not just in metro but also in regional areas. We will see a second injecting room opened. That again will assist people who often also have combined mental health issues to find a path to recovery and find a path back to families, back to community and back to health.

I believe that we have missed an opportunity to measure wellbeing. Assessing wellbeing by reference to overall income measures like the gross state product, or GSP, is a proxy measurement at best. We saw that New Zealand has taken on a wellbeing budget and the formal Treasury framework for assessing wellbeing impacts in decision-making known as the living standards framework. This is said to embody decades of domestic and international evidence on wellbeing. Sure, we measure GSP, but we do not measure if the economic activity is actually improving our lives. ‘This budget will increase our wellbeing’. Will it? I do not know. We do not measure it. I would like to measure how much it is improving our wellbeing. We say it is. The rhetoric from the government says it is—and I actually sincerely hope it will. Certainly, when you look at some of the innovations and the spends, I have no doubt that it will. But we should be measuring that. Next year we should be saying how well this budget did to help the wellbeing of all Victorians.

We can also learn from the way in which we have had to adapt during COVID and keep the good that has come from the experience, and nothing has been more obvious than in the way we can work more flexibly. We have known for a long time that the majority of Australian employees would have preferred greater flexibility, but uptake has been hindered by unclear workplace policies, the expectation that productivity or workplace culture would be diminished and gendered perceptions of flexible work as predominantly for women. But COVID-19 and the accompanying lockdown have forced a change to the normal way of work. Flexible work has been rapidly adopted and in doing so has demonstrated that the barriers to widespread flexibility have been largely those of an inflexible culture.

There have been so many benefits. Flexible work arrangements can distribute peak-hour traffic across a longer period of time and reduce congestion on roads and public transport systems. A 30 per cent increase in teleworking could reduce the average number of daily commuters from 550 000 to 394 000 a day, and congestion has a number of implications for emission production, commuter wellbeing, productivity, costs and employment and accessibility. Congested traffic increases the production of carbon emissions, obviously. Reducing congestion can therefore assist the Victorian government’s goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The average time Australians spend travelling to and from work each day is 4½ hours and has lengthened 23 per cent since 2002. The variability in the length of travel increases lateness, stress and absenteeism and negatively impacts on productivity. Congestion cost Australia $16.5 billion in 2015. This includes time impact, pollution and operating costs. Compared to the other major Australian cities, Melbourne’s average speeds have experienced the largest decline and Melbourne recorded the worst road variability in Australia. Congestion is expected to cost Melburnians an extra $1700 per person per year by 2030.

The obvious benefit to business of course is reduced overheads and reduced operating costs. If half your workforce is working from home on any given day, then conceivably your business might only require half the workspace. The caveat of course is that only applies to certain sectors, but this certainly could be a game changer. COVID-19 has challenged the normal model of work and has shown that we can do things differently. If the drop-off in traffic that we would ordinarily see during school holidays, for example, became permanent, then it might be that we could save millions on new road infrastructure, for example. It gives me some cause to think that we could do things more sensibly and more reasonably.

Finally, I think it is an opportune time to remind this government that Colorado, a state very similar in size to Victoria, generates over $200 million a year in tax revenue by taxing and regulating cannabis. In addition, decriminalisation alone would release pressure on the criminal justice system and save something in the order of $80 million a year in law and order costs.

With these points made, I note that as leader of the Reason Party it is not my prerogative to interfere with supply. I lend my support to this bill, as does my colleague Ms Cupper in the other house, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (16:15): Obviously this has been a really, really challenging year, and that is probably an understatement. It has been incredible, and Victorians have been through so much. So now is really the time, and it has been well earned as a result of Victorians working so hard to get us to a point of being effectively COVID normal. You could on the one hand get super cautious and say, ‘Oh well, let’s just not do anything. Let’s just wait and hope’. Or you could do what we are going to do, and that is drive jobs, drive the economy and drive the economic recovery. That is absolutely the right thing to do, because if you do nothing, you get nothing, and that is not who we are. As a Labor government we are very proud that we are always looking forward, driving forward and delivering for Victorians.

Now, so much has been discussed today about the extraordinary reforms that are being brought through by this very bold budget that we have here—this very strategically and well delivered budget. However, I am going to touch on just a few of the key elements, and I am going to neglect some of the others. And I say that sadly, because it actually is a terrific sign and a terrific problem to have—that there is so much to talk about—but I am mindful that there are many who want to share today, so I will keep it as succinct as I can.

A few of things that I do want to tap into that will actually impact and help all Victorians across the country include the incredible historic energy efficiency package worth $790 million—the largest of its kind of any state government. And we know that this is actually truly going to help some of the most vulnerable people in our community. That very much speaks to our values, but it also makes a lot of good, common sense because at the end of the day we are driving down emissions and people can save money on their energy bills. There is the safety element too—getting rid of some of those old gas heaters as well.

We also have this $1.6 billion package to create renewable energy hubs across the state, improving our grid infrastructure and decarbonising our energy system. It is the largest investment in clean energy of any state, ever, and that makes me incredibly proud. But I know that this will be truly, truly transformative for our state. We know it has to be done, we cannot rest on our laurels, climate change is happening, people have bills and we need to be driving down those power prices. That is exactly what we are doing. We are taking action now for the benefit of all Victorians into the future.

And finally, on those big, big packages, I do want to talk about Victoria’s Big Housing Build. That is $5.3 billion to construct 12 000 new homes both in metro and regional Victoria, driving 10 000 jobs per year over the next four years. I can honestly say that when I was sharing this with some of the constituents in my area I started to cry myself because I felt so buoyed by the fact that we are actually going to be making a real dent in this challenge. It seems insurmountable, but this is really making a dent in terms of being able to provide good sustainable housing, safe shelter, for people who are so very much in need. This is something that I am extremely proud of, and I am really glad that our government is taking these bold steps.

I am just going to touch on a few little things in the Southern Metro Region which actually also buoyed my spirits, including the recent announcement by Minister Spence about the Jewish Arts Quarter. We know in Melbourne we love our culture, and the 2020–21 state budget includes $3.5 million towards the development of this Jewish Arts Quarter. This is in addition to previous Victorian government commitments of $1 million through a 2018 election commitment and $500 000 through the Multicultural Community Infrastructure Fund in 2018–19 and takes the Victorian government’s total contribution to $5 million. It is a testament to the local Jewish community getting behind this and really driving this magnificent project forward. We are really happy to be supporting it as a government, and we know that it will actually serve both Jewish and non-Jewish people here and across the world. It will actually be a tourist destination, and I am extremely proud that we are able to be a part of that.

I just want to mention some wonderful developments for schools in the Southern Metropolitan Region. For the Victorian College of the Deaf there is $10 million. This school has been around for 160 years, and when I visited I have to say the staff were crying. They were literally just so thrilled to be getting this support and to be getting this endorsement of the incredible work that they do, taking in students from across the state—and it is incredibly important work. Again, looking at other schools in the Southern Metropolitan Region, we have Brighton Beach Primary School, Elsternwick Primary School, Elwood College, Gardenvale Primary School, Caulfield Primary School and Ripponlea Primary School all getting very important minor capital works upgrades. I have visited some of these schools already; the response has been incredible. I am really proud that we are able to help these schools continue to do the amazing work that they do in my area.

Finally, we have got $20 499 to go towards refurbishing the Hampton Life Saving Club. It was a pleasure to go down there and see the wonderful work they do keeping locals safe on Hampton beach as well. So you can see that this budget is really all about people, and it is really about building the best possible recovery for the state of Victoria and looking after people on all fronts.

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): I rise today to also make a contribution on the Appropriation (2020–21) Bill 2020. I want to take a moment right at the outset of my remarks to reflect upon the very concerning news that we got this week after the budget had been delivered: the news that after looking in detail at the impact of this budget Australia’s—or rather Victoria’s—AAA credit rating had been downgraded not once but twice. I misspoke, of course, when I said, ‘Australia’s’ credit rating, because Standard & Poor’s was very clear that other states—notwithstanding the fact that New South Wales had a minor downgrade, not as large as ours—are going very well. So the situation we have in Victoria is very much unlike the situation of our nearest neighbours.

It is all well and good when it comes to COVID-19 in particular for those opposite and their boosters in the media, on social media and elsewhere to point to other countries. We have heard about America and Europe even today; indeed we do every single day. The best comparison of course is with our near neighbour New South Wales. Contrary to the profligate and wasteful Labor government in Victoria, the New South Wales Liberal-led government has introduced balance-sheet reforms around taxation, notably stamp duty, and has introduced targeted fiscal reforms to aid deficit reduction.

Ms Taylor spoke before me about reform in relation to this budget. I do not seek to verbal Ms Taylor; I dare say she was thinking about social reforms, because there is no economic reform in this budget. And given the parlous state of our public finances I would have thought that that should have been the very first port of call for this Treasurer.

In its briefing note Standard & Poor’s is reported as predicting that Victoria—and I quote:

… would run big deficits for years to come and it had largely run out of assets to sell to help prop up its budget position.

All of us around this chamber know that full well; we hear about Jeff Kennett and his privatisations every single day. I quote again:

… Victoria’s economy has been affected more significantly than other Australian states and territories, mainly because fallout from the second wave of [COVID-19] infections resulted in a substantial and prolonged lockdown …

I was interested to hear Ms Taylor say that in her electorate there was funding for the ‘College of Death’. She corrected herself to say ‘the Deaf’, but it was interesting given that of course we have had more than 800 deaths as a result of this government’s ineptitude and mismanagement.

A ‘substantial and prolonged lockdown’, Standard & Poor’s said, and of course it was Daniel Andrews who foisted this lockdown on Victorians after his mismanagement. It was contact-tracing failures—and soon there will be a report from a committee of this house that I sit upon going into far more detail about that—that let the virus run rampant in our community.

Under Labor our total debt is forecast to reach $155 billion by 2024—$155 billion. That is almost 30 per cent of Victoria’s gross state product. It is a huge, unprecedented and soaring figure. To add to this, we also now are forecast to reach an extraordinary deficit level of $23.3 billion. Victoria’s economy has been impacted more significantly of course than any other state or territory. Under the cover of this pandemic Labor is throwing money around in an extraordinary fashion like there is no tomorrow—billions being allocated to Labor’s pet projects, as I said, without a fiscal reform or an economic reform in sight. We on this side of the house know that despite the protestations of modern monetary theorists there is no money tree at the bottom of the garden. Those on the Treasury bench have a different view.

Under this Labor government, as I have spoken about before in this house, the public sector wage bill has increased by 43 per cent, reaching more than $27.2 billion in 2019–20. That spending in particular is the spending that I point to when challenged by those opposite, who say of course, ‘What would you cut? Where would you reduce expenditure?’. This is not expenditure on nurses and teachers; this is expenditure on middle-ranking and senior public servants, and it goes way, way too far.

If we look at Labor’s economic track record, the Victorian state budget was in a parlous position before the pandemic hit us. COVID is the excuse for everything. The fact of the matter is that Victoria’s budget was in a very poor position even before COVID hit us. That was after six years of Labor spending, budget blowouts and mismanaged projects. Due to motions moved by my friends on this side of the chamber these are things that we have been able to discuss in recent days.

On these projects, there was something significant missing from this budget. An entire budget paper was missing from this budget—number 4. I could not find it. We know what ordinarily is in budget paper 4. It was significant that budget paper 4 was not included. We have been discussing today and in previous days this government’s disdain for integrity bodies, this government’s disdain for transparency and accountability. Misplacing an entire budget paper? The Treasurer said this was because, ‘Well, it is very difficult to do these things over Zoom’. What rubbish. What absolute rubbish. COVID was the reason again that an entire budget paper was not able to be prepared and presented to this Parliament and through this Parliament to the Victorian people.

Many other speakers are keen to have their say on this budget, so in concluding I would simply note one element of this budget in Eastern Metropolitan Region, which I am so proud to represent. There was an entire budget paper missing, but there was something else missing, and that was funding for the Box Hill transit interchange. Labor promised it would fix the Box Hill transit interchange even before the 2014 election. We have had committees established, we have had promises to produce reports. We have got nothing—no business case, nothing. So I use my opportunity today to once again call on the government to finally fund the project that my constituents care about most. That is what they say to me when I regularly reach out to them—the Box Hill interchange.

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:29): From time to time schoolchildren send me questions for assignments, asking me how I make my decisions. I think this is a useful educational exercise not only for them but also for me because I should, and we all should, be able to justify the logical and moral basis of actions to everyone, including children. We have a duty to explain this budget to children like never before because, as the Treasurer has admitted, they will be paying for it.

As reported in the Age on 25 November, he said the $150-odd billion debt will take decades to pay off. So I think Mr Pallas has a moral duty to redo the budget speech for children and explain it to all of us like we were eight. While we are at it, he might convene a new PAECK—that is, P-A-E-C-K—which would be the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee for Kids. This would be challenging because telling them the truth—namely, that your parents are buying stuff to make themselves feel better, and you lot can work out how to pay for it when you grow up—would be a hard sell. While the government basks in the glow of this Oprah Christmas giveaway of a budget, this is the hard truth. And if you think I exaggerate with the Oprah reference, consider this. Those remaining children who have not dropped out of school during lockdown should be able to figure out that we just burdened every Victorian with the equivalent of about $25 000 worth of debt. For that money the government could have bought every Victorian man, woman and child a Corolla. If the Treasurer had kept the regular budget in balance instead of indulging in a showbag full of investments nobody ever asked for, he could have done an Oprah and said, ‘Everyone gets a car’. But the people who will actually pay it off, those people in the ever-shrinking pool of productive enterprises, will pay much more than $25 000, and some will decide to do business somewhere else.

When I asked the Treasurer what items in the budget would help our kids repay the debt, he made the comment: what is the alternative to doing this? I would say that the alternative is not to put our kids in debt. I would say shouldering some of the burden ourselves would be a really solid alternative, just like previous generations of adults have done over the various crises that have invariably come up throughout history. Regardless of what challenges our kids will face in their lives—wars, depressions, climate change, droughts and bushfires—it is unconscionable that they will be paying for this massive indulgent sugar hit. Instead this government today is deciding where that money should go now, and of course there will be massive stuff-ups and blowouts. I can predict this with confidence because as the economist Milton Friedman has taught us, when people spend other people’s money on other people, they usually waste it because they are inclined not to care about the cost or what it is really spent on, and this is what I discovered at the PAEC for grown-ups. When I asked ministers to describe exactly what line items were being spent on, they very often could not say. When I asked why the new $1.5 billion gallery precinct of modern art was so expensive, I was told it is because the National Gallery of Victoria is not big enough to fit all of its exhibits. But no-one can explain why it will cost more than 15 times more than MONA in Tasmania, which is a private institution and actually cost Tasmanian taxpayers nothing.

The government seems to believe that money is like a magic bandaid that can be applied to any problem so that once money is allocated to something—say, mental health or family violence—then that is the end of the story. And never mind the investment in schools. We can expect the $3 billion allocated to school buildings in this budget will have a similar impact on educational outcomes as the money spent by the Rudd administration on school halls, which is to say not very much at all. But never mind the evidence, look at the investments. I am equally sceptical that the Victorian Startup Capital Fund of $60 million will be a good use of taxpayer dollars, because businesses that have good ideas are invariably supported by private companies that care a great deal more about their investments involving their own money. We are told this is the first government start-up fund of its type, but that is because it is a bad idea. Governments have no business meddling in the space.

Meanwhile, as the ever-ageing Australian population is becoming more politically powerful every year and as most of us here will probably retire by the time it takes to pay off this debt, we can rest assured that we will not be paying it off. In fact we will probably convince our kids to let us into Dan’s art salon on a pensioners discount for free, and there we can spend our leisure time looking at artworks portraying the immorality of the evil capitalists who are out busting a gut trying to pay for it all. While some say the debt is justified because the pandemic is unprecedented, I believe there should never be a precedent for living the high life and putting it on your children’s credit card. So where will it end? Will our kids decide to put their kids into debt, or might they rebel one day like others before them who have experienced taxation without representation? It should not be forgotten that it all started here, where one generation decided not to be the adults and instead passed their discomfort on to the next generation. Placing this burden on our kids is selfishness, and I condemn this attitude and the budget.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (16:35): Today I rise to speak on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the state budget—the day that we acknowledge that Daniel Andrews walked into every child’s bedroom in this state and smashed open their piggy bank, because that is who is going to have to pay for the level of debt that this state has acquired. We learned post the budget that Victoria has had its AAA credit rating downgraded. Well done, Mr Pallas, the first Treasurer in a number of decades to have our AAA credit rating downgraded, and not just by one step but by two.

We find more and more through this state budget that this is not about building a future for our children. This is not about building a prosperity base for future generations. This is not about making sure that older Victorians can retire in comfort with appropriate levels of state debt. This is about paying for Labor Party stuff-ups on major projects. Unfortunately, Deputy President, I have got limited time today, but let me just alert you to what this state has done. I note that other speakers, including Mr Limbrick, have talked about the fact that one of the budget papers is missing in our compilation of budget papers this year, and it is pretty obvious why.

By way of example, the North East Link was promised to cost us $5 billion. The last update is it is going to cost $15.79 billion—a $10.79 billion project blowout. What did it say in budget paper 4 this year? Well, nothing of course, because it does not exist; it has not told us what the real cost is going to be. The West Gate Tunnel—is it ever going to go ahead—at $500 million was the promise; the last update was $6.7 billion, and there are no figures in this year’s budget about what the real cost is to date.

For the Level Crossing Removal Project $5 billion was promised as the cost. The last update according to the Auditor-General was $8.3 billion—$3.3 billion over budget and with no accountability for it in this year’s budget. The Metro Tunnel—$9 billion, they said. Currently it is going to be at least $11 billion, and the current budget blowout? Well, they will not tell us. With the east–west link Daniel Andrews said it was not going to cost a cent to cancel this project, not a cent—$1.3 billion. The Victorian Heart Hospital they said would cost $150 million. So far we are up to $564 million, and in this budget how much is the actual cost blowout? Well, they will not tell us. The Cranbourne line project is, similarly, $251.2 million over budget. The Caulfield to Dandenong conventional signalling upgrade is $248.28 million over budget. The Mordialloc Freeway is $223 million over budget. The Cranbourne-Pakenham line upgrade is $189.9 million over budget. The Hurstbridge line is $168.8 million over budget.

The Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital is $73.6 million over budget. The stabling project on the Frankston line is $49.3 million. The Hoddle Street upgrade is $48.6 million over budget. The Plenty Road upgrade, stage 2—and they still have not fixed it—is $40 million over budget. Casey Hospital is $33.5 million and Yan Yean Road is $31 million over budget. The Ballarat line is $32.8 million over budget. The Fines Victoria project is currently $20.3 million over budget. The congestion package around the transport network package is currently $20.1 million over budget. Frankston station is $11.8 million over budget. V/Line fleet maintenance is $10.5 million over budget. Hallam Road is $8.5 million over budget. Huntingdale station car park is $6.7 million over budget. Mount Buller water storage is $6.19 million over budget. The Thomas Embling Hospital is $4 million over budget. And what does this budget paper say about what the current state of the project blowouts is? They will not tell us; they refuse to tell us.

This budget has hurt Victoria, but particularly for my electorate of Northern Metropolitan it has not provided any incentives for employment, for prosperity, for families—none whatsoever. For Northcote High School, no money; John Fawkner high school—no money; Mickleham Road, just a set of traffic lights, which is going to add to the congestion; Somerton Road, no money; Craigieburn Road, promised two and a half years ago—no money. The Craigieburn hospital, promised two years ago—no money.

And just look what it is doing to families. The unemployment rate in Broadmeadows is 21.1 per cent; in Campbellfield, 18.5 per cent; in Meadow Heights, 21.6 per cent; and Roxburgh Park, 15.2 per cent.

Across Northern Metro the unemployment rate is well and truly above both the Victorian and national averages, and more and more and more this government are just hiring more backroom public servants to top up their support. It is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

I go back to where I started, Deputy President. This is not a budget for Victoria. This is a budget that is burdensome to children being born today because each of them, when they are born in hospital, get an automatic bill of $25 000 from Daniel Andrews. To Daniel Andrews, as my colleague Mr Finn says, thanks for nothing.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:40): I rise to talk to the budget papers and the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. It is with very great pride that I talk about these measures. This is a historic budget, the like of which has never been given out before in order to put people first, in the history of this state and also in the history of Australia. This is a budget taking us back to the future, a future where we are emerging from a pandemic that has affected all the people in the world, all the countries and all the economies that we know of. This budget is comprehensive and compassionate, and on top of that, it is a far-sighted budget built for the future, not just for our generation but for the generations to come.

Many speakers before me touched upon different aspects of the budget. I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the things that I am particularly interested in, but I will not have time to go through all the details of such a huge and historic budget. The first thing I would like to talk about is the Big Housing Build package. My colleagues and I on the Legal and Social Issues Committee have been holding an inquiry into homelessness. While the inquiry is still not finished yet because of the disruption of the pandemic, this package of the Big Housing Build will provide much assistance and alleviation for some of the key issues that we have found thus far in our inquiry.

The budget spends an unprecedented $5.3 billion, of a total $6.6 billion, to build more than 12 000 new social and affordable houses. That build and construction will support more than 10 000 jobs, and that number of jobs is not the total but per year for the next four years. So while the project and the building package, the Big Housing Build, provides for housing and accommodation for the people in need, for the vulnerable cohort in our society, it also provides the employment that is much needed for us to recover from the pandemic.

The other one I would like to touch upon is the Breakthrough Victoria Fund—$2 billion. This is to build on our expertise and world-renowned capabilities in research and innovation. We only have to go back to last February, when the virus first came to Australia, to see that it was the Australians, it was the CSIRO in this state, who succeeded in sequencing the virus. As a result of that discovery and sequencing we now have many viable vaccines to take not just us but people around the world out of this pandemic of a very indiscriminate, virulent and damaging virus.

And we also have world-class medical research, apart from any other scientific institutions. I cannot pass up this opportunity to point out our pride in the Peter Doherty Institute. Peter went to Queensland University and then Edinburgh University, and so did I. I did my undergraduate at Queensland and PhD at Edinburgh, but the similarities of course end there. Peter Doherty became the pride of our nation and our state in winning the Nobel Prize in medicine.

The other aspect of the budget is about education. For education the budget has allocated an investment of $1.9 billion in schools—not just in buildings but also in upgrades. And also a large fraction of that, namely $389 million, is to support the improvement of 39 specialist schools across our state to help the people who deserve and need the support of specialist education.

I can go on and talk about health, with the new hospital and with a budget of around $9 billion for the whole health system and of course mental health. And also I could also spend time—maybe much more, which I do not have—talking about roads and rail and particularly energy costs and the cost of living, which are some of the necessities in our daily life not just for people but also for industry and also for our future in order to tackle climate change.

So I have listened to the contributions from the opposition across the chamber. Of course they complain about why this is not funded, that is not included and so on. Of course we know that everything is finite and in order to spend the budget and because of the pandemic we have to prioritise things. We do not have infinite amounts to spend on everything or anything, and in order to do that we have as a government decided to focus on the people, to focus on employment, to focus on education and also to focus on the timing as well. We cannot just spend all the money—

Mr Finn: Timing is important.

Dr KIEU: Exactly, the timing is important, and we have to prioritise things in terms of the urgency, necessity and timing so that things will fit together as a sequence.

But then I was very confused and could not believe that some of the people on the crossbench were talking about why we need to spend money at all. Money is there to help the people. Of course we have to be financially responsible.

Mr O’Donohue: Aha!

Dr KIEU: That is the key—aha. Then they talk about why we have to spend this money and not preserve a surplus or even a balance going forward. Tell me, show me a country in this world which has not been touched by the pandemic and which is not affected by the pandemic economically. We are one of the few, Australia and Victoria, of the countries that have successfully come out of the second wave. We are the envy of the world.

Members interjecting.

Dr KIEU: You may want to talk to the World Health Organization about the origin of the virus. That is another issue I am not going to touch upon here.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Dr Kieu, through the Chair so you do not engage with the opposition benches.

Dr KIEU: My apologies, Deputy President. Now, people talk about the downgrading of the AAA rating by an agency—a respectable agency but one which is based in New York. The rating is important for us to borrow money and for us to show our strength economically and financially, but it is not able to feed a family, to feed a nation or to feed the people. And the downgrading is there because of the economic damage arising from the restrictions we had to have in place. People are still talking about why we had the restrictions. People were talking about why we did not have this or that freedom. Of course we cannot in the situation of emergencies and disasters like the pandemic, which is still raging in Europe, in countries like Germany and France, and the UK, not to mention the US, which is the richest country in the world. They are still not finding a way out of this—and look at what will happen to their economy. I am not wishing them a damaged economy. I am just trying to remind people of the reality of something that we never wished to happen to others, let alone to us.

Now as other countries are being affected and most of their economic activities have been suspended, we are coming out ahead, earlier than most in the recovery time. There is still a lot of money in private funds and in government looking for places to do investment, to invest in for the future, for their profits, for private companies and so on, and definitely Victoria and also Australia are in a very good position for investment funds to find a home.

The last thing I would like to touch upon is: what is the real value of money? It is a convention of a piece of paper, of the coins that we mint, so that we can trade and help people—people are first. Of course we are responsible, but what is the value of money if we do not spend in the right place at the right time for the right measures to help people, particularly in a situation like the one we have had? What is the value of money if people have no jobs; the children, the youngsters have no future; and many people have no homes?

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:53): I usually aim to be brief; however, as I missed speaking on the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020 I intend to tack that speech onto this one as well, so brevity may not be achieved today. If you like, you can think of it as two brief speeches jammed together.

Each year government bureaucrats and politicians strain and struggle to spin cost into revenue, burden into investment and economic devastation into opportunity. The government like to talk about who they are spending money on and how generous and thoughtful they are being. I listened to the Treasurer liken himself to the sage and benevolent elder who plants the seeds of trees he will never sit under. Well, that is one way to see it. The Liberal Democrats are here to provide the other half of the picture. This is the context and the information the government tries to minimise and distract from. These are the facts. Over the next year the government will cost Victorians $85 billion. It is more than likely it will cost at least that much every year for the foreseeable future. That sum amounts to $13 360 from each Victorian man, woman and child. That is $34 750 for the average household, which is made of 2.6 people; it is more if you have kids. Keep that number in mind—$34 750.

Does your family have a spare $34 750? Not many do. Imagine if your family had another $34 750 every year? Imagine what kind of investments you could make in your future and in your children’s future? That is the cost to the Victorian government every single year. This number does not include income tax or local government rates; you will still have to pay those too. It does not cover Centrelink, the pension, the military, universities, Medicare, disability support or many other things; those things come from the federal budget. It also does not cover local roads, rubbish collection and community infrastructure; those things come from local government. At this point some of you may be thinking, ‘What exactly does my $34 750 cover?’. If you do not know, that is all the more reason it should not be taken from you in the first place. If you do not know what you are getting, how can you know if it is worth the cost?

I said earlier that the government likes to dress up the burden as investment. When questioned by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee the Victorian Treasurer said:

If we disinvest in the future, all we do is we move into a downward spiral of disadvantage.

He is trying to convince you that the government’s spending is not a burden, it is an investment. But think about this: this is the Treasurer whose budget will disinvest $34 750 from the futures of every household in the state every year. This $34 750 would otherwise be spent in the community. The truth is that the government does not have any money to invest. It is and always was your money. If the government did not take it from you, you would have invested it yourself. You would have invested it in businesses when you buy from them. You would have invested it in goods and services that you know you need and that you know are worth the cost. You would have invested it in your children, your home, your education, your health and your future. You would have invested it in starting up your own businesses and investing in innovation. The Liberal Democrats believe that you would have spent that money more wisely than the government. That is not a really hard burden to me. You would have created jobs and supported the things that are important to you. Instead this money will go towards things that are important to politicians, things like buying votes.

If you do not believe me, let us go through the government’s own budget papers. This year the government will take $2.6 billion from taxpayers to fund corporate welfare in the form of direct handouts to business. They will take a further $1.6 billion for handouts to energy corporations and $682 million for infrastructure improvements that benefit those companies. They will take another $720 million to fund vouchers and subsidies for products made by those companies. In addition, $510 million is earmarked for travel corporations and $65 million for agricultural corporations, and $6 billion will go directly to building corporations and another $500 million in subsidies. Some of this corporate welfare takes the form of direct handouts while some of it is in the form of contracts and procurement.

And remember, your household and every other household is paying $34 750 to fund this. You might think that those taxes are paid by the rich, so you will not really have to pay this money. It is true that at the federal level the wealthiest in society pay the most in taxes, but it is not the same at the state level. The states rake in the lion’s share of their plunder through three taxes: the housing tax, the job tax and the thing tax—which, for explanation, is stamp duty, payroll tax and GST. If you live somewhere, work somewhere or buy anything, you are paying those taxes.

The picture is even worse if you live in the regions. You are still paying those taxes, but the money is not coming back to you. The government’s budget spin boasted of $8 billion for the regions, but the government is also counting Geelong and Frankston as part of the regions. This $8 billion investment also includes welfare spending of up to $6 billion. After you take that out and the spending for Geelong and Frankston, it is not clear there are any funds at all directed to the regions. Compare this spending to this city. The Suburban Rail Loop is set to cost anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion at least, and by the time it is done overrunning it will probably be $200 billion. The regions get $8 billion in total; the city gets $100 billion for a single project.

I have said this before, but it is time the regional communities were able to represent themselves. We do not need to be beholden to a Parliament stacked with Melbourne MPs. The Australian constitution provides for and has always intended that new states would be created as the population grew and shifted. This year’s COVID restrictions and now this budget have made it very clear that regional communities should be represented by a regional government.

I am happy to say that this year’s budget comes with some tax cuts. The government claims its tax cuts will lead to job creation. The Treasurer reports that $836 million of tax relief will support 9400 jobs and will stimulate the economy. Tax cuts make jobs. The message could not be clearer, except that throughout the rest of the budget the Treasurer explains how government spending, which requires higher taxes, also creates jobs. So according to our Treasurer, when the government spends money it makes jobs and when it does not spend money it makes even more jobs. According to our Treasurer there is simply nothing the government can do that does not create jobs.

Unfortunately there is a little bit of sleight of hand going on there. There are two tricks hidden in this job creation promise. The first trick is to avoid talking about how many jobs are destroyed by taxes. When the Treasurer says that an $836 million tax cut would create 9400 jobs, what he really means to say is that every year the government destroys 9400 jobs by its taxes and this year they are choosing not to destroy those jobs. Taxes destroy jobs, and when the government cuts taxes it destroys fewer jobs and then claims credit for creating them. That is trick number 1: do not talk about the jobs destroyed by taxation. The second trick is to never remind people that spending requires taxation. The Treasurer will tell you that whenever the government spends money it creates jobs. For example, the government claims that the Big Build in its jobs program will create 10 000 jobs. However, the government also claims that the Big Build will cost $6 billion. Six billion dollars in spending requires $6 billion in taxes, and $6 billion in taxes destroys $6 billion worth of jobs. If an $836 million tax will destroy 9400 jobs, that means a $6 billion tax will destroy 67 400 jobs. So with this project the government will destroy 67 400 jobs to create 10 000 jobs in their place. That is 57 400 fewer jobs than without the government intervention. That is the government job creation program. That is the bigger picture. Governments do not create jobs and they cannot create jobs, but they can and they do destroy them.

So while I am happy there is a modest reduction in the amount of tax paid on jobs and on houses in the short term, I am mindful that in the long run this budget represents one the sharpest increases in government spending and therefore taxes, whether now or later, in decades, perhaps ever—certainly since the Second World War. The Liberal Democrats are proud to stand against high levels of taxation and against increases in government spending. We believe that you know how to spend your own money better than politicians do. While the overall tax rate is falling, the government has announced new taxes. Even with the drop in total taxes, the government has to squeeze some increases in somewhere. You have expanded or added 29 taxes since coming into government. Dropping the overall tax take is a good thing. However, the massive deficits and debts this government will run up will be a weight around our children’s necks for a generation. We have stolen a year from our children’s lives, and now we have saddled them with a debt they will be paying back their entire lifetime. At the end of this unprecedented year with unprecedented deficits and unprecedented debts, as we go to our COVID-normal Christmas, it is not entirely clear to me that the Treasurer is Santa; I think he is more Krampus, punishing our children.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (17:04): I rise to make my contribution on the government’s Appropriation (2020–21) Bill 2020, and in doing so it reminds me of the good old bad old days of the Cain-Kirner governments. I remember that. I was still at high school at the time when that started to flex its muscles in terms of pain to Victorians, and certainly back then there were interest rates in the absolutely burdensome range of 19 per cent and 20 per cent. The only thing that is probably saving the government at the moment is that we have low interest rates. But wait, they will be higher, and there will be more pain. The government is fantastic at—in fact, they make an Olympic sport out of—waste, taxes and budget blowouts. In the magnitude of this budget we have a $23 billion deficit. If we translate that over four years, we have $155 billion in debt—$155 billion in the red.

We have seen this week that Standard & Poor’s have dropped Victoria down the drainpipe, which unfortunately we deserve under Daniel Andrews—two points from a AAA rating down to a AA rating. This pain will be felt for decades and decades to come. This pain translates not into some sort of atmospheric debt that is out there that we will not have to deal with. Victorians will have to deal with it, and as I have heard before from this side of the house, it will be our children’s children that have to deal with this. If I did a survey of people in this house who have children and I said to them, ‘Are you trying to pay down your house? Are you trying to put a little bit away for your children? Do you have life insurance?’, many people here—I would think most—would say yes. They would not say, ‘Look, I’m going to ram through, I’m going to live an exorbitant life and I’m going to make sure my children, when I die, end up with a load of debt to pay down’. Now, that is what we have got here. That is the reality of Daniel Andrews.

What that means is that there will be less spending, there will be less money going to police, there will be less money going to teachers and there will be less money going to hospitals and schools, and I guarantee you that ‘less’ will be felt in the country of Victoria. It will be felt in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region. This government makes, as I said, a gold standard not of contact tracing but of budget blowouts. We have got the Metro Tunnel, we have got level crossings and we have got the West Gate, running two years late—$26 billion to date. Now, remember that number, because I am going to come back to it: $26 billion in cost overruns right now. And the infrastructure is going to be affected, as I said. Surgery waitlists are already at an epidemic status. I have people coming into my electorate office lamenting the fact that they are on waiting lists of months and months and for very normal things that deserve attention that they will have to wait for.

There is good debt and bad debt, and we all get that. We all understand that good debt can drive recovery and good debt can build infrastructure and invest in communities. The Nationals and the Liberals have come up with a Back to Work and Back in Business plan that looks at that good debt and that looks at building infrastructure, investing in local communities and investing in a resurgence of manufacturing. These are sensible things and reasonable things, but in no way would we consider a reckless debt like this appropriate for our children’s children.

Now, in relation to what we can achieve here in Victoria—country Victoria—I have heard the government talk about the marvellous job they have done in regional Victoria over the past five years under Daniel Andrews, and the Treasurer was boasting that 7 per cent of the whole spend of the last five years is going to regional Victoria. Well, let us look at some stats in that. We are 25 per cent of the population. Twenty-five per cent of the population over the last five years have got 7 per cent of the government spend. Now, in terms of that, that actually ends up being $26 billion over five years. That is the cost of the government’s blowouts so far to date on just a few infrastructure projects.

Another little bit of a fact for you: we are 25 per cent of the population, and a state government-produced report, the most recent Victorian Food and Fibre Export Performance Report, says in the past five years rural and regional Victoria have provided $65 billion to the export economy in terms of food and fibre—$65 billion. That is almost a third of the whole national export market, and that comes from rural and regional Victoria. So if you want to talk about fair and equitable, you are not looking at it here.

Another thing that the government is doing for us in terms of Victoria is that because of the hotel quarantine debacle we have got 200 000 Victorians out of work. Now, I popped over the border a few days ago to see my son, who I had not seen. He lives in Sydney and I said at last Christmas, ‘See you, dear. I’ll see you in March. We’ll catch up again’. I popped over, and I had not seen him for about 340 days. It was so good to see him. I walked into a shop—it was just a milk bar—and I was gobsmacked that people were not wearing masks. The economy had not closed down. I could go on, but the message is that New South Wales did it much better.

We have got 200 000 people out of work; 200 000 people have lost their jobs. Women in Victoria have borne the brunt of that economic disaster, with 51 000 women having lost their jobs according to the latest unemployment figures. We see in this budget, recently out this week in this house, that IBAC, an important oversight entity, has had $4.4 million slashed from its budget to expose corruption and prevent corruption in the future. The Premier said on 12 November:

The budget will be delivered on 24 November and IBAC will receive more funding than it has ever received before.

Well, my colleague Danny O’Brien on the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) very clearly got the Premier to show the difference between now and then and the $4.4 million loss.

We have also seen the Ombudsman’s budget has been cut. This is atrocious. These people are there for 10 years, the Ombudsman. I had the pleasure of meeting her a number of years ago, an exemplary human being doing a huge task to be that independent investigator. Deborah Glass said:

… once again my ongoing funding has fallen substantially short of what is needed to respond to public expectations of my office.

I am quoting from the Ombudsman’s report:

… the apparent reluctance to fund my office could risk looking like an attempt to undermine it.

This is atrocious. It is not fair. It is not reasonable. As we have seen, there has been so much money bandied around—$26 billion wasted on infrastructure blowouts—and yet the government feels most comfortable in being able to cut these budgets. We have seen PAEC—we have seen committees—being cut.

Now, if I turn to issues that are dear to me and dear certainly to my electorate, there is no dedicated funding in this budget for the Firesticks program, a really important program that sees Indigenous culture reinvigorated in the landscape but also helps to mitigate fuel load build-up. It helps to heal country, and there is such a good message and such good healing in that. This government needs to listen—not pay lip-service but give it a dedicated line.

There needs to be increased budget funding for bush nursing centres—again, most wonderful people in my electorate and across Victoria that last year did an outstanding job, when the fires were burning down on the towns, servicing those people. They work on a shoestring, and there needs to be adequate funding there.

If I look at particular issues that I have worked on with my constituents and my community, it is really disappointing—and I can underline really disappointing—for the people of Traralgon that the Princes Highway and Bank Street intersection was not upgraded. It had some funding, and yet that was not enough—there is a shortfall of about $2 million. Now, this is a very dangerous intersection, and I have constituents come in and say that they have had near misses all the time. There was a death years ago, very tragically for a family, but many accidents happen there. It is achievable to upgrade this to provide additional public safety. There were media releases out on that saying, ‘It’ll be finished by 2019’—and we have heard that rhetoric. There should have been car parks in Traralgon and Morwell. There should have been the Morwell food hub upgraded by now. We heard of SEA Electric—500 jobs was the promise, but no delivery.

The drug rehab centre was supposed to be well underway to being finished. We see a comparative one in the Hope Centre in East Gippsland that was funded at the same time by this government. It was a small portion by this government, but it was also philanthropic and private enterprise and the feds. It is up and delivering services, and our drug rehab in Latrobe Valley is still to have even a shovel in the ground. It is false advertising when this government shares it with the community and then disappoints.

It is very disappointing too to see that with Bullock Island—another fantastic project that needed to come to fruition was the unloading wharves at the Lakes Entrance fisherman’s co-op, a really important industry down in east Gippsland—it needed some infrastructure, and that went missing.

Also, on Bairnsdale Secondary College, we saw that that had some funding, but it was only funding for portables rather than the second stage rebuild that it needed. I have been there when water has been running down. They have had buckets collecting water in the library. This is a great school, a great community; it just needs that funding.

There are other examples: Foster Primary School still needs funding. Fire brigades across the board still need funding. And a really scary and very sad corner in my electorate that I travel frequently is the South Gippsland Highway down near Coal Creek in Korumburra. Unfortunately there are plaques there marking where people have died. It is a bad corner and it needs funding.

I cannot go through this debate without mentioning the Warragul hospital and the need for the West Gippsland hospital. I commend the member for Narracan, Gary Blackwood, for continuing to advocate for that, and The Nationals and the Liberals committed to that in the last election.

We also need additional funding for Drouin Primary School. It is bulging at the seams. Baw Baw is a wonderful community there, with increased access, and people are thronging to and living there. We also see that Inverloch residents have been calling for the coastal erosion study to be completed, and we see that it is being kicked down the road. These are important issues for people. They care about the erosion of our coastline and they want to see that rectified, and we do not see that happening in the near future, which is very disappointing.

I cannot finish without saying that my community is an amazing community. I am very privileged to be one of the five members who are responsible for, look after or advocate on behalf of Eastern Victoria Region. We have done it tough, but we are strong and we are resilient. But this government has burdened our children’s children with a debt that will be hard to bear for decades to come, and they do not deserve it. We do not deserve it.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:17): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020 and the 2020 Victorian budget. The context of this budget is of course the global COVID pandemic, a pandemic that has wreaked havoc across the world and upended life as we know it. The social and economic consequences of the COVID virus have been profound. Now that here in Victoria we have brought the virus under control, we need to focus on how we can build back from the impacts of this year’s events and build a better future for all Victorians.

Earlier this year, with my daughter at only eight weeks old, I came to Parliament to vote for legislation to extend the government’s ability to declare a state of emergency. I voted to ensure the government had the tools it needed to combat the COVID-19 virus and keep Victorians safe. It was the right thing to do then and has proven to be the right decision. Victoria has now seen 41 days with no new COVID cases. We have done what few places in the world have managed: to virtually eliminate a second wave of COVID. All Victorians should feel proud of our collective efforts, and the hardships we have endured have provided us a good place from which we now can recover. My Greens colleagues and I are proud that we stood up to the right-wing fear campaigns and could play the role we did in ensuring the government and the chief health officer could do what they needed to do to bring the numbers down and keep us safe.

We are now at COVID normal. The pandemic is still a threat, but we can move around our cities and state safely. Internal borders are open, we are able to enjoy the company of our family and friends, and economic activity is returning. This is not to excuse the government for the mistakes it made earlier in the year, but once the second wave took hold we needed to act together as a community to get it under control before we could move forward with the social and economic recovery before us.

In the context of an economy devastated by the pandemic, the Greens advocated for a big-spending budget that would create jobs and seek to tackle the challenges of our time: the climate emergency and inequality. We called for a Green New Deal for Victoria. The COVID crisis has revealed in even greater starkness the challenges of economic inequality in our state and across the nation. Not everyone has endured the same hardships. Many were able to keep their jobs, pay their rent and manage, with difficulty, the lockdowns, but too many have lost their jobs or lost income, been unable to pay their rent, have struggled to pay for food and other necessities. The economic impacts will be with us for a while, as the budget numbers indicate. Victoria’s unemployment rate will stay above pre-pandemic levels for at least the next four years. Youth unemployment will be higher still. And as the federal Liberal government’s support for workers and the unemployed through JobKeeper and JobSeeker is being cut or reduced in coming months, this will only add to the economic hardships of many.

So in this context we congratulate the government on this budget. They have spent big to create jobs, and mostly in areas that are important for Victorians in the long term, as well as managing the immediate situation we have found ourselves in. If I may be so bold, many budget initiatives are remarkably similar to policies the Greens have advocated for many years. For example, the household energy efficiency package, upgrading the grid and supporting more renewable energy and storage projects like the Big Battery, investing in more trams, a new recycling innovation centre and new recycling plants as part of a recycling revolution, a big investment in our caring workforce with a focus on mental health and more education for our kids.

I also want to note the casual workers sick and carers leave trial the government has announced. The pandemic has brought much-needed attention to the plight of workers in insecure jobs. The fact is that many of the essential services we all rely on are undertaken by people working in poorly paid and insecure work, whether it is cleaning services or keeping our supermarket stocked, whether it is carers in aged care or supporting people with disabilities, or those working in the hospitality industry. This is an excellent initiative, and I congratulate the workers and unions who have played a role in getting it up. At a time when our federal government continues its war on workers, seeking to undermine wages and conditions even further, it is important for state governments to use the limited powers they do have to address insecure work and the inequality it perpetuates.

Of course the Greens do not agree with all the spending in this budget. Spending money on continuing to log old-growth forests, extract gas and support duck hunting just does not make any sense at a time of a climate crisis when our natural world is under so much threat, not to mention the government is still spending over $20 billion on just two polluting, environment-destroying toll roads.

There are a couple of areas I want to comment on in a bit more detail. One of them is housing. My Greens colleagues and I have been passionate in campaigning for years on housing in Victoria, particularly the need for more and better public housing. Homelessness is a significant social justice issue facing this state. Public housing in Victoria has been neglected for decades. We are the lowest spending state per capita on public and community housing, and there are now over 100 000 people on the public housing waiting list and thousands more in insecure housing, so we welcome the fact that in this budget the government has finally taken some action. It is testament to the individuals and community organisations that have been campaigning for years that the government is now investing in housing.

But I want to go through carefully what the new $5.3 billion announced in the budget will be spent on, because we remain concerned about some aspects of it. First, we have $532 million for the first tranche of housing—500 new social housing homes and 500 affordable and market homes on existing government land. While we have no real information on what ‘affordable and market homes’ means, it is worth noting that affordable housing often means housing rented at 80 per cent or less of market rent, which given Melbourne’s rentals is barely affordable. Further, social housing is usually used by governments to hide the fact that they are not prioritising public housing.

Second, there is $948 million for 1600 new social housing homes and 200 affordable homes. This is funding for the government to buy existing homes or acquire newly built homes, which again will be handed to the community housing sector to manage.

Third is $1.38 billion for 4200 new homes through the Social Housing Growth Fund, in effect more than $1 billion of direct funding for the community housing sector. Lastly, there is $2.14 billion for 5200 new homes through partnerships with the private and community housing sectors, a catch-all to allow the private sector to build homes on existing government land which once again will all be managed by housing associations.

There is a massive hole here, a really significant gap. There is no new money for new public housing. Not a cent of the $5.3 billion announced in this budget will be spent on new public housing, housing that is owned and managed by the state, housing where the maximum rent is capped at 25 per cent of income and security of tenure is guaranteed. In fact the only new public housing this government has committed to is a paltry 1000 new dwellings in last year’s budget. This is devastating. It is devastating because it appears to seal this government’s retreat from public housing and confirm its intent to continue down the neoliberal path of outsourcing and privatisation. I have heard all the platitudes and obfuscations whenever the government is challenged on this. It will talk about how much money it is spending and will change the very language being used in relation to what is going on to suit its agenda. It is no wonder that the broader debate on housing now uses the term social housing when talking about the government’s role in providing affordable housing. It has re-authored the debate we are having to hide the reality that it has no intention of significantly increasing the amount of public housing we build even though there are over 100 000 people on the waiting list. It keeps talking about social housing instead of public housing so that it can say it has funded more housing when in fact it is retreating from the model of public housing and instead investing more and more in its failed public-private partnership model that will see more and more government-owned, publicly owned land being used for private for-profit housing. This is absolutely the wrong path, and the government must reconsider this direction urgently.

You would have thought it would have learned its lesson when it tried to push its public housing renewal program onto the community, which would have seen large swathes of inner-city public housing land transferred for private housing. Thanks to the community campaign against it, the government backed down, but only a bit, to claim that the land now will not be sold, but we are yet to find out more details about who will maintain control of the land and why it cannot be used for more public housing. As we speak in here, those public housing estates earmarked for the doomed public housing renewal program lie empty. The government broke up communities that had been living with and supporting each other for years, moving them to outer suburbs to which they had no real prior connections. There are many who will never forgive this Labor government for what they did to their lives and their community.

This is not to detract from the important contribution of community housing providers but to argue that housing is a human right and that the primary role of the state should be to provide public housing. The best way to solve homelessness in Victoria is through a big build of public housing. The Greens are proposing 100 000 new public housing units be built over the next 10 years. This would see the end of the public housing waiting list. It is something we can achieve. I can promise you the Greens will continue to advocate for public housing, for new public housing and for existing public housing to be brought up to scratch.

I would like now to speak about debt and tax reform. I would like to comment more broadly on the economic parameters of this budget. A big-spending budget to create jobs has meant that the state debt has increased significantly. The Greens support the government in expanding the state’s debt. Now is not the time for austerity but the time for investing in the people of Victoria. It is disappointing, although not surprising, to see the opposition fall back to its default of criticising the debt and waving around discredited credit ratings as if the world had not just gone through a game-changing event. The ratings agencies that give out these scores are deeply compromised. They were in large part responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis, giving sound ratings to rubbish products, and are far removed from the reality of people’s lives. Their concern is not for people and it is not for the planet. Debt that is raised when interest rates are so low and invested in productive activity that materially assists the people of this state by providing housing, building renewable energy, paying for more teachers and nurses and community workers and creating jobs is exactly what is needed now, and we back the government on this.

We are, however, disappointed the government has not taken the opportunity in this budget for serious tax reform. Victoria’s existing revenue base is unsustainable and vulnerable. Stamp duty revenue is due to fall 25 per cent this year and gambling tax revenue has also shown itself to be unstable, falling 15 per cent. The world is not yet on the other side of the pandemic, and the population growth that has fuelled Victoria’s economy can no longer be relied on. We need to get used to more uncertainty, not least because of climate change.

Despite throwing the idea out there a few months ago, the Treasurer has backed away from the reform of stamp duty, but it is a reform that is necessary. Stamp duty is an outdated tax that keeps homes unaffordable, locking people out of housing. Other jurisdictions are now moving from stamp duty to a broad-based land tax. The New South Wales Treasurer is in favour of this. The Greens-Labor government in the ACT is already transitioning to land tax, recognising the need for a stable revenue base in these uncertain times while also seeking to address housing affordability.

Given the difficulties that recent corruption allegations at IBAC are causing the government, we had also hoped it would consider a land rezoning tax. A tax on the unearned wealth created by the stroke of a minister’s pen when rezoning land would provide revenue and remove incentives for corruption. It is a no-brainer. The Greens will continue to pursue this and other sensible tax reform.

In fact the only new revenue measure in this budget is set to put a brake on the take-up of electric vehicles in Victoria and undermine Victoria’s efforts to combat climate change. The proposed new tax on people who drive electric vehicles has been roundly criticised by climate and environment advocates. Emissions from transport are growing. Just today the state emissions report shows transport emissions are the fastest rising emissions in the state. What we need is a rapid uptake of EVs, not public policy that makes the necessary transition from fossil fuels even harder. A government committed to tackling climate change would be encouraging EV uptake, not putting the brakes on.

And speaking of climate change, I wish to conclude with remarks on what remains the greatest challenge facing people and our planet. We started this year experiencing catastrophic climate-induced bushfires across the east coast. We wore masks to keep smoke particles out of our lungs, rather than a virus. People lost their homes, millions of hectares of land were burnt and billions of animals were killed. If we do not act to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees, the types of crises we have faced this year will become the norm. To that end, the budget investment in renewable energy, the Big Battery and the energy grid are very welcome. In the context of Australia’s climate policy, practically non-existent at a federal level, the Victorian government’s renewable energy announcements are very welcome.

There is, however, something missing—that is, a plan to get out of coal. Victoria still generates 70 per cent of its energy from burning toxic, polluting coal. To even have a chance of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees, we need a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030. And it is something we have to do together, led by the government. It is not something that can be left to the energy companies or to the vagaries of the market, and it is possible. What is more, getting it done will create thousands of new jobs. And if the government plans now, they can support the Latrobe Valley community, who have provided our energy for so long.

So as we come to the end of what has been an unprecedented year of challenge, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Premier, the Treasurer and other ministers for shouldering the burden of guiding Victoria through such difficult times. I also want to pay tribute to the public servants that sit behind the politicians and do the work to make Victoria a better place. I congratulate the government on this budget and look forward to working with them in seeing the aspiration of this budget realised.

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:34): I rise to speak on the state budget 2020–21. This is a budget that has borrowed an enormous amount of money and racked up a record amount of debt for our state—$155 billion. It is an enormous amount of additional debt and additional impost on the future generations of Victorians. It has actually increased the debt by about $100 billion, but of that $100 billion only about $8.4 billion is actually being spent on new projects.

And the rest? Well, goodness knows where it is going, but we know that a lot of it is going on cost blowouts. We know that the major projects that this government are undertaking have blown out by an enormous amount of money. I think that Mr Ondarchie ran through quite a few of those, and just a few that I can recall off the top of my head are the metro rail tunnel, which has blown out by about $2 billion; the West Gate Tunnel, a blowout of $1.2 billion; the level crossing removals, $2.3 billion; and the Cranbourne line duplication, $251 million. It seems that everything Jacinta Allan touches has cost blowouts and job losses attached to them.

Mr Finn: She has got the Midas touch in reverse.

Ms LOVELL: She has got the Midas touch in reverse, Mr Finn, and it is not serving our state well at all. One of the really big omissions from this budget is of course budget paper 4, the budget paper where we do see those projects that are over time, those projects that have blown out, their budgets, and no wonder this government did not want to produce that paper this year. They did not want to produce that paper because they do not want people to see the blowouts and the time lines for their projects and they do not want people to see the blowouts in the cost of those projects either.

But I would actually describe this budget as a budget of missed opportunities in my electorate particularly, and that is because although we have had enormous borrowings, enormous debt racked up, it has not actually been invested in country Victoria and regional Victoria as it should have been. One of those examples is this Big Housing Build that Dr Ratnam has just been talking about. The Big Housing Build is going to build 12 000 houses, they say. Well, there is actually, as Dr Ratnam said, well over 100 000 individuals on the public housing waiting list, but if you bring that back to applications—so households or families—on that list, there are 48 529. So this Big Housing Build will house less than a quarter of the families who are already on that waiting list, languishing on Labor’s waiting list. The other 75 per cent who do not get a house out of this Big Housing Build will continue to languish, and more people will join that list, and what we have seen under Labor is just enormous growth in the public housing waiting list ever since they came to power.

But of even greater concern than just the general waiting list, the 48 000, is actually the priority list, and that is because these people are already homeless. They are living with disabilities, they have special housing needs, they need to be moved because they need to be hospitalised or they need to be near hospitals for treatment or they are escaping domestic violence. Well, that list is actually at 25 827 families or applications—whatever you want to call them—and that means this is even less than half of this priority list. These are the people they are saying need to be housed immediately. Less than half of them will actually be housed under this Big Housing Build.

But one of the biggest disappointments of the Big Housing Build is of course that the government trumpeted that 25 per cent of it would be built in regional Victoria. Well, that sounds great, doesn’t it—except for the fact that 37 per cent of the people on the priority waiting list actually live in regional Victoria. So when it was announced for Shepparton of course Suzanna Sheed, a pseudo-member of the Labor government, made comments on behalf of the government in the Shepparton News, and she was saying that the money allocated to Shepparton will build 150 new homes. Well, there are actually 1419 families on the public housing waiting list in Shepparton, so that is about 10 per cent of them that might get housed under this Big Housing Build. But as I said, other families will also join that list, so we do not expect to see it decline in numbers anytime soon. That of course goes for right across regional Victoria, because 37 per cent of the applications on the priority waiting list are in regional Victoria but only 25 per cent of the houses will be built there.

Another opportunity that has been lost in Greater Shepparton was of course a commitment to the Shepparton bypass. This is a project that the people of Shepparton have been waiting decades for. The federal government have had a commitment of $208 million on the table for some time—for well over 18 months in fact—for this bypass, but Jacinta Allan cannot even produce the business case. It is more than 12 months overdue, and she said it would be released by the end of the year. Well, time is fast ticking on that. We are in mid-December, we still have not seen that business case and there is no funding for our bypass in this budget—a dreadful disappointment to the people of Shepparton.

The completion of Goulburn Valley Health is another priority project that does not see a cent in this budget. There is no point building half a hospital. Our hospital needs to be completed, and there is no further commitment to it in this budget. Part of the completion of that hospital would of course include mental health, which is already at capacity and struggling to meet demand—and it was doing that before COVID-19, so goodness knows how much under pressure that department is now—but also the outpatient facilities. And of course we need investment to help our parenting services. We need both a mother and baby unit at Goulburn Valley Health and a parenting service, but the government, even though Shepparton has some of the highest rates of disadvantage in the state and also some of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, does not want to give those services to Shepparton, because they do not generally vote Labor.

The Maude Street redevelopment is another project where the federal government have their money on the table and local government have their money on the table but there is nothing from the state. The Shepparton Sports Stadium would be a fantastic project in Greater Shepparton, but that did not attract any funding, even though that would create around 200 local jobs during construction and inject an additional $12.3 million per annum into our local economy upon completion. It would have been a fantastic COVID recovery project, because not only would it do all of that but it would also service the sporting bodies in Greater Shepparton and allow them to actually expand. We are currently losing competitions because other regional cities have expanded their stadiums. Shepparton is losing competitions because our stadium needs its redevelopment. The La Trobe University expansion would have been a great thing for them to fund. The clinical health school, which is a joint project between Goulburn Valley Health and La Trobe University, would have very much welcomed funding in the Shepparton electorate, but of course it was not to be in this year’s budget.

Mildura also missed out on a mother and baby unit or parenting unit at their hospital. In fact there is no commitment to anything at the hospital in this budget, even though the government have taken that hospital back into public management. Ramsay, who were managing it before, had promised $13 million for some new works at the hospital, but we have seen no commitment from this government for any expansion of services or infrastructure at Mildura Base Public Hospital, and a mother and baby unit and a parenting unit are desperately needed there too—again, an area with some of the highest disadvantage in the state and some of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the state. This is a remote community. It is a long way to travel to Bendigo. They need those services in their town. The Mildura motorsports and community complex went unfunded, and of course the Nichols Point and Murrayville recreational reserve master plans also went unfunded.

Another project in my electorate we have been advocating for for some time, and to which Danielle Green made a commitment before the last state election, that still did not get funding was a replacement police station in Whittlesea. The people of Whittlesea are very, very disappointed that they have not seen any investment in their local police station, which is not up to scratch. It is not big enough to service the area. It is not big enough to house the police who are there. The facilities are inadequate. It is a very old, run-down station that needs to be replaced.

In Bendigo they would have loved to have seen funding for some of their projects—but it was not there—such as for the Reimagining Bendigo Creek plan, the Bendigo showgrounds redevelopment project, the Greater Bendigo community food hub and the Bendigo Stadium solar PV and battery storage project. There are a lot of things that went unfunded in this budget that would have really helped regional Victoria to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. But of course we know that this government is not about regional Victoria; it is all about metropolitan Melbourne.

Of course this budget is largely smoke and mirrors to actually fund the cost overruns in their existing projects and to look like they are doing something to help this state recover from COVID-19 when what they are actually doing is driving the state into debt. They have now lost the AAA credit rating—not one downgrade, but two downgrades to AA. That will cost this state in borrowings in the future. It makes it harder for us to borrow money, it increases the interest that has to be paid, and every cent that is paid in interest is less money to be spent on services and infrastructure in the future. Not only that but it puts debt on our children and our grandchildren. Victorians will be paying off this budget for generations to come, and they have not got good value for their money.

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:46): I rise to speak on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020. In his budget speech the Treasurer told the other place that, and I quote:

… we are borrowing to keep Victoria’s economy and livelihoods afloat.

Net debt will reach $87 billion by the end of this financial year and will grow to $155 billion by June 2024. The Treasurer argues that this colossal debt is necessary to salvage the economy which has been obliterated by business-destroying lockdowns amidst Labor’s second wave—a second wave for which Labor are totally responsible because of their failure in hotel quarantine. But no-one it seems will accept responsibility for that debacle. Understandably, significant public expenditure would go towards building infrastructure. The problem is, as many other speakers have said, this government cannot manage a single project on time or on budget.

I do wonder, however, why this bill entails substantial increases in the budgets of every government department. Does the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning seriously require a 29 per cent budget increase? I would love to hear the Treasurer explain how more money spent by DELWP agency Parks Victoria on reintroducing dingoes into the Grampians National Park, shooting deer from helicopters and getting in the way of fuel reductions to prevent catastrophic bushfires, rock climbing or roadside grazing somehow provides vital economic stimulus. They just cannot possibly need that amount of money. Is the Department of Premier and Cabinet, for example, going to single-handedly save us from economic catastrophe now that they have a 32 per cent budget increase? However, when scrutiny of government is needed now more than ever before, funds are being deprived—indeed starved—from our important oversight agencies, like IBAC. It is this dishonesty by the Treasurer that is most troubling. The reality is that the government is using the pandemic as a cover for bloating the budgets of every bureaucracy. And future generations of Victorians will bear the brunt of it—a cruel legacy for our children and their children.

The government had an opportunity in this budget to invest in rural and regional Victoria. Road and rail infrastructure could have been significantly funded, enabling vital industries to grow and underpin the state’s economic recovery. Instead only $50 million of the $250 million required for the Murray Basin rail project was provided. And many other road and rail projects go unfunded. This is enabling infrastructure vital to improve productivity in the primary industry sector.

Regional Victoria was devastated by fires last summer and now finds itself a victim of a belligerent communist dictatorship’s trade restrictions, but the government’s focus is where it always is—inside the tram tracks of Melbourne. Much of the investment that was announced for regional Victoria turns out to be a sham. Warrnambool Base Hospital was promised $384 million for a redevelopment but will only see $3.3 million this year, $23.7 million next year and $58 million the year after that. The government even boasted prior to the budget of their long-awaited decision to invest $75 million to build a new Melton hospital in my electorate, but as it turns out the Treasurer will only provide $100 000 in this budget for the hospital. Most of the money will not arrive until after the next election so they can head to the polls and recycle an already announced promise to try and save, in this instance, the member for Melton or, I understand, maybe a new candidate for that seat after their failure to stop the dumping of toxic soil in the electorate of Melton.

So where did the money go in this budget? The Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions had their budget more than doubled, with an increase of $1.3 billion. It is a big number but vague on details. The department lists on its website as the first and largest item of expenditure that it will undertake a $1.46 billion expenditure for the first phase of the Melbourne arts precinct transformation. Is this seriously the most pressing issue facing the state? Just $300 million was announced to fix regional roads, but apparently nearly $1.5 billion is needed for cultural infrastructure in the CBD. Perhaps in a time of great prosperity and long-term stability it could be more justifiable, but we are on the cusp of an economic crisis only saved by incredibly low interest rates. Wait till we get back to the Keating period of 22 per cent interest rates that devastated so many people. We need enabling infrastructure that will allow industries to enhance their productive capacity in the regions, not buildings and art inside the tram tracks that will be easy on the eye. If this expenditure explains the enormous increase in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions budget in this bill, then there are serious concerns. Of course this is the department that was responsible for the initial hotel quarantine welcome packs et cetera; that is what Global Victoria were responsible for. Maybe this is just helping them fix up the mess that they created at that time.

The government has also announced a $619 million investment in Jobs for Victoria, which reportedly is a six-month wage subsidy for 10 000 Victorians. That works out to be $61 900 per worker for six months, annualising to a salary of nearly $124 000. Is this a wage subsidy or is it a wage substitute? Further, it is a textbook example of government giving with one hand and taking with the other. Businesses are forced to pay significant payroll tax on wages for their employees, which will be funnelled into consolidated revenue, distributed into the pockets of inefficient bureaucracies and bureaucrats and then provided back into the hands of businesses—all at enormous cost. The churning of taxpayer dollars should always be avoided, but a Labor government loves to churn taxpayer dollars. Rather than providing payroll tax credits as this government has announced, they could have simply reduced or even abolished the tax totally—this terrible tax, which is a tax on jobs—and there might not have been a need for such extraordinary expenditure.

As others have said, if you tax those that create the wealth and create jobs, you actually are not providing an efficient way of expanding the economy and expanding job opportunities for many. But this bill is emblematic of Labor’s economic mismanagement, their lack of concern for future generations of Victorians and their neglect of regional Victoria. This state will be paying the price of Labor’s second wave for decades to come.

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

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood)

I am pleased to make a contribution in support of the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020.

A one-in-100-year event pandemic deserves a budget like no other, and that is exactly what the Andrews Labor government has delivered.

We’re responding to the challenge presented this year by the pandemic by investing up to $49 billion in the things that matter to all Victorians.

As Minister for Early Childhood, I am very proud that this budget invests almost $774 million in our youngest learners—giving them the best start in life.

This investment builds on the strong foundations of previous years. In the last two years, we’ve delivered over $1.8 billion in new initiatives.

We’re ensuring that we’re recovering stronger and fairer by better serving young Victorians, boosting workforce participation and jobs and helping family budgets along the way.

Free kinder

To ensure access to critical early learning, we’re investing almost $170 million for free kinder in 2021.

This will save families around $2000 for each child enrolled in a participating funded kindergarten program in 2021.

It will benefit up to 100 000 Victorian families across sessional kindergartens and long day care.

This will also make it easier for parents—particularly women—to take up employment and training opportunities.

Three-year-old kindergarten

This budget continues the near $5 billion nation-leading rollout of the Labor government’s three-year-old kindergarten reform with an additional $302 million.

Next year, 15 more local government areas will get access to funded kinder, benefitting thousands of families.

And in 2022, funded three-year-old kinder reaches every part of the state.

Building our early childhood workforce

This exciting reform will see the growth of the early childhood workforce by 6000 early childhood teachers and educators.

To support this, we’re fast-tracking teacher training programs for early childhood teachers.

We’re offering financial incentives between $9000 and $50 000 to attract more early childhood teachers to regional areas.

TAFE commencements are also up 102 per cent in early childhood education thanks to free TAFE.

Creating opportunities through EC infrastructure and jobs

We’re investing almost $70 million so families have the best kinder facilities, closer to home.

This builds on our $1.68 billion commitment to build new kinders and expand existing facilities right across the state over the next decade.

And it’s on top of the $473 million in infrastructure we committed last financial year to support the expansion of three-year-old kinder.

By doing this, we’re boosting jobs in construction and creating additional kindergarten places.

Upgrades to infrastructure will provide more inclusive facilities for all children.

Thanks to EC teachers and educators

This year, parents have had to juggle work and child care and kids learning from home. Even now with kids back at school and kinder, we know that balancing act isn’t easy.

I want to thank all of our early childhood teachers, educators and support staff who have continued to educate and care for our children and ensure they remained connected to early learning during what has been a very challenging year for the sector.

I also want to thank early childhood teachers and school teachers for their recent support in preparing children to transition successfully into school. We invested $4 million to support successful transitions, particularly to re-engage vulnerable children. Our investment in early childhood in this budget will further reduce the burden on parents and better support children at their kinder program and as they move into school.

As we recover from the pandemic, the Andrews Labor government is committed to continuing our investment in early childhood education and building our Education State, which of course starts with the early years.

Western Metropolitan Region

In my electorate of Western Metro, I am very pleased to see the many projects being funded in the 2020–21 budget to improve the lives of residents in Melbourne’s west.

Schools

From Sunbury and Essendon to Tarneit and Werribee, schools throughout the western suburbs will share in $400 million worth of funding to build new facilities and make much-needed upgrades. This funding will also go to building new schools throughout the region.

Funding in the budget will help deliver seven new schools in the growth areas of Melton and Wyndham, including five primary schools and two high schools.

As well as 14 school upgrades covering modernisation, sporting facilities, playground upgrades and capacity increases, including almost $25.3 million to upgrade and modernise the Kinnear campus of Footscray High School and almost $25 million to Mount Alexander 7–12 College in Flemington, to name just two examples.

This is on top of the $72 million upgrade announcements across 10 additional schools announced prior to the budget.

In addition, five special schools will receive upgrades totalling $44.9 million, and we are overhauling our government school disability support, with funds allocated to increase support for disabled students so that those who may have previously been ineligible for targeted support, such as those with autism, dyslexia or complex behaviours, will get the support they need.

Health and hospitals

As the west continues to grow so too must its services—especially health care.

That is why we are keeping our promise and committing $66.1 million in funding to continue the development of ten community hospitals, including the new Sunbury and Point Cook community hospitals.

Melbourne’s west will also share in $200 million of funding to upgrade medical equipment and improve services.

A further $75 million will be invested so that land can be purchased for the new Melton hospital, bringing that project one step closer for residents in this growth area.

We have also announced $4.8 million to plan for the future expansion of the Werribee Mercy Hospital. Once completed this will provide the community with the health care they deserve.

Mental health

This year’s budget invests in the health and wellbeing of our loved ones by continuing the fundamental rebuild of Victoria’s mental health system.

That is why Sunshine Hospital will be sharing in $492 million from the budget to increase the number of mental health beds, ensuring the best care is just around the corner.

We are also investing $7.7 million in funding to begin to address workforce shortages in the mental health sector to support future expansion of the workforce.

Skills and jobs centre—Footscray Hospital

And as part of an overall budget package worth $74.8 million, a new skills and jobs centre will be established at the Footscray Hospital construction site.

This will provide Victorians with onsite advice about training and employment opportunities. This site will see group TAFE’s train their students in a new training delivery model alongside industry professionals.

Roads and transport

The Werribee rail corridor will receive major investment and works during stage 1 of the Geelong fast rail project.

The project will deliver track upgrades between Werribee and Laverton. This will create a dedicated express track to the CBD. It also sees Geelong services return to the Werribee corridor upon the removal of the Werribee Street level crossing. All of these works will cut down travel time to and from the CBD.

More trains, less travel time and the creation of thousands of jobs

As part of an overall package worth $117 million, four busy roads in the Western Metropolitan Region will receive road and intersection upgrades, including:

• Melton Highway–Leakes Road;

• Point Cook Road–Sneydes Road;

• Melton Highway–Sunshine Avenue–Old Calder Highway; and

• Racecourse Road, Kensington.

Law courts

We’re providing $271 million for new Wyndham law courts which will deliver a new Western Metro headquarter court with 13 courtrooms, four hearing rooms, three mediation suites, a specialist family violence court and 26 holding cells to meet the growing demand for Werribee and surrounding growth corridor.

And we’re also providing $26.87 million to the redevelopment of the Sunshine law courts redevelopment. Expansion works will include the provision of two additional court rooms.

Tourism and parks

One of the biggest attractions in the west is also getting a major upgrade!

Over the next five years, Werribee zoo will transform into Australia’s leading open-range zoo adding a treetop ‘sky safari’ and elephant sanctuary to its impressive grounds.

This new elephant sanctuary will see Werribee become the home to Melbourne’s much-loved Asian elephant herd.

The redevelopment will also upgrade existing facilities, boosting tourism and creating hundreds of local jobs.

And we’re providing $36.6 million for the Whitten Oval master plan stage 2 works to support the expansion of the Western Bulldogs Football Club’s community programs and provide a hub of recreation and community facilities.

The master plan will upgrade community and Australian Football League Women’s match day training facilities.

And a number of parks across the Western Metropolitan Region will receive upgrades to ensure safe and equitable access and to facilitate community exercise and wellbeing. Part of an overall budget package worth $52.4 million, including:

• Point Cook Coastal Park;

• Brimbank Park;

• Organ Pipes; and

• Point Gellibrand Coastal Heritage Park.

The three rivers program will receive $500 000 for protection from invasive plants and pests to the Werribee, Lerderderg and Moorabool rivers—critical waterways that supply significant recreation benefits to the community and valuable ecological and biodiversity services.

And finally, a new boat ramp will be constructed on the Maribyrnong River in Ascot Vale thanks to $1.6 million from the Andrews Labor government which will allow better access to boaters and recreational fishers in Melbourne’s north-west.

Conclusion

These projects I mention in my Western Metropolitan electorate form part of a broader targeted set of initiatives to get Victorians back to work, build opportunity, build our state and rebuild our economy so that no Victorian is left behind.

As the economy strengthens, our budget position will strengthen. We have the will and right priorities to get our economy moving again.

I know that this year has been so hard for many constituents of the Western Metropolitan Region and this budget is about putting people first and at the heart of our recovery efforts.

I commend the bill to the house.

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education)

2020 has been an astonishing and challenging year, with events that none of us could have foreseen, and Western Victoria has experienced it all, from bushfires last summer through to the devastating impacts of COVID-19 and even floods in the far south-west in spring.

I can say that the people in my electorate have managed this year with resilience, persistence and a faith that things will get better.

We came into 2020 from a position of economic strength, which stood us in good stead:

• We led the nation in job growth.

• In the six years from November 2014, when the Andrews Labor government was elected, 500 000 Victorians found work.

• Our economy had grown by 18 per cent.

• We contributed nearly one-third of Australia’s economic growth from 2015.

• All of this was on the back of sound economic management.

But COVID-19 has been a huge economic hit, and we must work together to turn around what we expect to be a 4 per cent decline in Victoria’s gross state product in 2020–21.

My electorate of Western Victoria, at nearly 80 000 square kilometres, is bigger than Tasmania by 10 000 square kilometres and includes a very broad diversity of economic activity. It’s long been the mainstay of Victoria’s food and fibre production, and that has continued through the pandemic, but traditionally it includes all of the industries associated with tourism too.

We could not be where we are right now without the assistance of all Victorians and the contribution of regional Victorians who were asked to make huge sacrifices in order to make our state safe.

Western Victoria shared in the strict health measures that were needed to protect public health—essential, but coming with a measurable economic cost. Like the rest of our state, the disruption to normal economic activity has been extreme.

It’s been a privilege to represent this area since 2006, and I look forward to working on the road to recovery with its people.

This budget looks forward, not back—not just to recovery, but to a better, fairer future.

It embodies values that go to the very heart of what the Andrews Labor government is about:

• concern and support for community and the things that are important in strong community life

• addressing inequality by putting in place strategies and mechanisms that will give opportunity and better life chances to our kids through education from kinder onwards

• creating a better quality of life for everyone through good health care and above all through employment that delivers an economic future and dignity.

Our government’s jobs plan is central to Victoria’s recovery. We know we have an ambitious goal, but it’s achievable—400 000 jobs by 2025, and half of those by 2022.

Our priority is to start projects quickly, to create jobs and to deliver improvements to Victorians’ lives.

This budget adds a $9 billion investment in health on top of the biggest investment in health in Victoria’s history from 2014–20—$109 billion.

We can see clearly how this will impact in my electorate.

In 2009 the Brumby Labor government committed $115 million for a rebuild of Warrnambool hospital, and I was very pleased to be with the then health minister, Daniel Andrews, to announce the government’s commitment to improving health services close to where people live.

Now, in the 2020–21 state budget, we have the biggest single government investment in Warrnambool ever—$384 million that will fund a new emergency department, operating theatres and acute inpatient beds in the next stage that will deliver quality health care to this region for decades. It’s just fantastic to see the excitement of people in the south-west.

I thank the member for South-West Coast for acknowledging that this is ‘reason for the region to celebrate’ and the Andrews Labor government’s recognition that ‘the healthcare needs of our community matter’.

It makes one thing absolutely clear: only Labor governments fund hospitals in the south-west.

Elsewhere in Western Victoria the focus is clear—on services provided for regional Victorians where they need it:

• $120 million across regional Victoria to upgrade healthcare facilities under the Regional Health Infrastructure Fund

• Melton: $75 million to acquire land and lay the groundwork on the first stage of a new Melton hospital

• Maryborough: $5.2 million to expand Maryborough hospital

• Torquay: land to be acquired for a new community hospital

• Geelong: $3.6 million to plan and design a new women’s and children’s hospital in the growing Barwon region

• $5 million to build a new Anam Cara private respite service for those with end-of-life needs at Deakin University’s Waurn Ponds campus

• delivering residential places in Geelong for those recovering from drug and alcohol dependency.

Education is the cornerstone of opportunity in life.

I am so proud of this government’s record at every level of education, starting with kinder and through primary and secondary schooling to post-secondary education at TAFE and to apprenticeships and initiatives that help Victorians to obtain real jobs.

Across this state we are rolling out three-year-old kinder, but at the same time this budget is delivering upgrades to kinders that improve the learning environment in early learning centres. Kinder will be free for eligible families next year too.

There is an extraordinary investment in specialist schools, with two hardworking school communities in the south-west celebrating fantastic new opportunities for their kids:

• Hampden Specialist School in Terang, where almost $12 million will move its P–4 campus, in conjunction with Terang College P–4, to brand-new buildings on a new site shared with the college’s years 5 to 12 students in an exciting example of inclusive education

• Colac Specialist School, which will use over $15 million to build a brand-new school on a new site.

In all, if we include funding of new builds and upgrades at specialist schools in Horsham, Hamilton, Melton, Geelong and Ballarat, that’s nearly $90 million to help students with disability shine in education in Western Victoria.

The massive upgrade and new builds of regional primary and secondary schools is boosting regional education and communities in Lorne, Birregurra, Skipton, Merrivale in Warrnambool, Stawell, Rainbow, the Geelong region and more—over $123 million.

So many schools have told me that these projects will make all the difference to optimism and spirit in their towns.

All of these projects will deliver local jobs and help to build regional economies.

The Andrews Labor government is also working hard to make sure that students at risk of disengaging from school, especially at transition points, are helped over this hurdle.

COVID-19 has added to the challenges, and the Geelong Project is a unique early intervention project—we’re funding it for the next three years.

We’re also supporting Skilling the Bay, helping students to prepare for the world of work in a rapidly changing environment.

In TAFE and training, the budget provisions apply across Victoria, not just in my electorate, but I want to congratulate South West TAFE and Federation University on their outstanding work.

Our focus in this budget is on helping Victorians obtain new skills and find real jobs at the end of that training by continuing and growing free TAFE and subsidised training places, especially in the key priority areas that are essential to Victoria’s recovery. This budget commits $631 million to this program.

We also want to make sure that those who were especially badly affected by the economic impacts of the pandemic—young people, women, retrenched workers—can access government-funded training next year, including those who may wish to retrain in new skill areas to help address skill shortages.

The budget also supports apprentices with $33 million to expand opportunities through a Big Build training pathway.

Victoria’s Big Housing Build will invest $5 billion in the largest single funding of social and affordable housing by any government in Australia’s history. We’re committed to looking after our most vulnerable people and to making sure they have access to a safe and secure place to live.

Twenty-five per cent of the total program will be in regional Victoria, and I know that Warrnambool and Ballarat communities are especially appreciative that there will be a guaranteed minimum local investment of $25 million for Warrnambool and $80 million for Ballarat.

At least $200 million is guaranteed for Geelong and the Surf Coast.

The Big Housing Build will create jobs for Victorians—up to 10 000 across the state every year for four years.

Tourism, and all of the businesses that depend on it, has taken an enormous hit in 2020. Hospitality and accommodation enterprises have been devastated, nowhere more so than the Great Ocean Road region.

In the absence of international tourists, this government is working to bring domestic tourists to the extraordinary attractions of the south-west.

The Great Ocean Road, the Otways and the Shipwreck Coast will be helped by stimulus in several forms, all of which will help local economies:

The Great Ocean Road Action Plan has established the Great Ocean Road Coast and Parks Authority to coordinate the management of the Great Ocean Road area and its landscapes.

There is $47.5 million to build better infrastructure along the Great Ocean Road that will heighten the visitor experience, including a fantastic $23.8 million coastal walking trail between Fairhaven and Skenes Creek—more than 60 kilometres—with five swing suspension bridges that will give the very best view.

We forget that the Great Ocean Road is more than a tourist icon—it’s a link between communities and part of a transport network for food and fibre. The road itself will get a $255 million renewal over five years, creating jobs in construction and development.

Regional tourism boards play a key role in attracting visitors not only to the Great Ocean Road but also to the goldfields around Ballarat and Bendigo and to the Grampians. The funding of each—$13.2 million—will help to stimulate these regions.

Brambuk Cultural Centre in the Grampians, or Gariwerd, is Victoria’s flagship Aboriginal cultural tourist attraction—$5.8 million will help in revitalisation, complementing recent investment in Budj Bim and Tower Hill.

Small business is the typical model in Western Victoria, especially in regional townships, though there are large enterprises too.

As everywhere, many have struggled, especially in hospitality and accommodation and ventures like retail, allied health and swim schools.

During this year, this government has provided tax and fees relief and tax deferrals, and this budget continues those measures, including raising the threshold for paying payroll tax.

Our new jobs tax credit will encourage businesses to take on more staff when they reopen and rebuild.

We want businesses to open, relocate or expand in our regions—a 50 per cent stamp duty concession will help do that, two years earlier than planned.

The Barwon South West Dairy Supply Chain is the network of roads in the hinterland of the Great Ocean Road that provides the crucial links between farmer and processing factory, and factory and market for the produce of the south-west, especially milk and timber.

This government will spend $17.4 million rebuilding, resurfacing and widening these priority roads and strengthening bridges so that they can cope with heavy vehicles of the sort that the roads were never designed for.

There are important rail projects, too:

• The upgrade of the Warrnambool line has already begun but now will include track upgrades so that VLocity trains can operate on the line, giving residents better and more reliable train services, along with extra services.

• The Geelong fast rail will be the result of state and commonwealth co-funding, a massive $2 billion funding package that will end with more frequent and more reliable services to and from Melbourne for our second-largest city, and will also benefit the growing satellite communities along the line.

There is so much more than I can’t mention in this time frame today:

• measures to support our First Peoples at Framinglam and beyond to address Aboriginal inequality and to provide secure housing

• incentives to build a clean energy future

• assistance to farmers and food producers to upgrade their infrastructure and buy new technology and upgrades to regional agricultural colleges

• projects to revitalise local creative arts

• provision for new and upgraded emergency services.

This is the time to stimulate the economy, not to deliver a surplus budget.

In framing this budget, we have heeded the advice of the governor of the Reserve Bank: increase your borrowings. He said, ‘It is a change that is entirely manageable … and it is the right thing to do’.

This government will always be a government of initiative—not of reaction, like those opposite.

Unlike the previous state government, this government continues to invest in regional Victoria. Including this budget, we will have invested over $26 billion since 2014—more than three times that of the Baillieu-Napthine government.

Our investment in the future of this state is based not on recovery alone but on promoting a fairer future.

The projects funded in this budget will deliver better health, better housing, better schools and better outcomes right across my electorate and across Victoria—a positive future that will deliver economic progress.

I commend this budget to the house.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan)

It is with great pleasure that I rise to make a contribution on the Appropriation (2020–2021) Bill 2020.

Every year, members rise in this place and talk about how important and significant the budget is—and by all means that’s true—but given the year we have had and what Victorians have endured, I think it’s fair to say this budget has a significance perhaps like no other.

After a year that has been described as unprecedented, tough and unrelenting—that began with a devastating bushfire season only to be followed a few weeks later by a global pandemic, a one-in-100-year event—Victoria needs and deserves nothing less than a budget to rebuild, recover and make Victoria stronger.

And I want to take this opportunity to commend and thank all Victorians—for their resilience, compassion and strength and for the sacrifices they have made to get us to where we are today.

We could not have got to 41 days without a new case of coronavirus without the efforts of all Victorians.

We have seen firsthand the best of our community in the worst of circumstances.

But it’s come at a cost—as it’s been an incredibly difficult year for so many and nobody will emerge from it unscathed in some way. And it has been much harder on some than it has been on others.

Our success in suppressing the virus means we are ready to reopen and rebuild—and we will invest like never before in the infrastructure and services our state needs for the future.

In order to make these investments, Victoria will make use of record low interest rates—ensuring our state can rebuild sooner and stronger.

And that’s exactly what this budget does—it funds $49 billion in the things that matter to Victorians and our economic recovery.

It’s a budget for families, for regional communities, for workers, schools, children, TAFEs, hospitals, businesses, the environment and so much more.

It’s a budget that ensures Victorians are supported, their work is valued and their livelihoods are secure.

It’s an investment in fairness—and in our state’s future.

But more than anything else, it puts people first.

This is a fantastic budget—which isn’t just about recovery; it’s about reform.

A key feature of this budget is the investment in our jobs plan which sets an ambitious goal of creating 400 000 new jobs by 2025 with half of those being created by 2022.

This includes:

• Jobs for Victoria: a $619 million investment that will help those most impacted by the pandemic—women over the age of 45—recognising the additional barriers they face, both before and during the pandemic.

• Further funding will provide one-on-one support for those workers who need it most—whether that’s training advice, career counselling or even help to update their resume.

• We’ll also make it easier to retrain and upskill, with $1 billion to support our skills sector, including an extra 80 000 free TAFE and training places with courses linked to jobs in demand—giving Victorians a clear pathway to a new career.

The budget includes $67.6 million for Chisholm TAFE Frankston Campus, in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region, for the stage 2 redevelopment to provide a multilevel learning facility full of opportunities for students attending the flagship TAFE of the south-east.

It will provide flexible spaces to accommodate the growth in high-demand courses, especially health‐related courses, which will:

• respond to growing local industry needs, including community services, information technology and cybersecurity;

• be designed to attract and retain students into post-secondary education; and

• relocate the delivery of courses, including art and design, into more suitable facilities.

• As part of the Big Housing Build package, our $5.3 billion investment will make sure Victorians have the security and stability of a home, delivering 12 000 new social and affordable homes.

This investment is about fairness, decency and equity—and will change lives.

It will also help more Victorians into work, supporting around 10 000 new jobs on average each year over the next four years.

We’re also investing $64.7 million to make the Home Stretch program available to any young person in out-of-home care who wants it, because every young Victorian deserves a safe and supportive environment at such an important time in their lives, not worrying about where they are going to sleep tonight.

• We’re continuing to invest in the industries and people that have always been pivotal to our success. That includes the new $2 billion Breakthrough Victoria Fund—cementing our position as an international leader in innovation and creating a pipeline of more than 15 700 jobs over 10 years.

• We’re providing more tax relief and job support for businesses who have done it tough during the pandemic, including $836 million for the new jobs tax credit to encourage small and medium businesses to increase employment by re-hiring staff, restoring staff hours or supporting new jobs as they recover from the effects of the pandemic.

• A further $1.6 billion investment in clean energy and energy efficiency will also help power our state’s recovery. This includes establishing six new Renewable Energy Zones to create jobs, support wind and solar and put power at the heart of our economic recovery.

It includes $797 million to reduce household bills, with energy efficient appliances and $250 power saving bonuses—like the Solar Homes Program which will deliver an extra 17 500 solar battery rebates, an additional 42 000 solar PV panel rebates and 15 000 solar rebates for small businesses.

It also includes $108 million to fast-track the next generation of renewable energy for Victoria—part of the biggest energy investment of any state ever—getting projects out of the lab and into the gird, creating jobs, clean energy, cutting emissions, tackling climate change and driving down power bills.

• We’ll continue our massive infrastructure investment, building our state for the future while also creating thousands of jobs for Victorian workers.

This includes kicking off work on stage 1 of the Suburban Rail Loop which will connect our growing health, education, retail and employment precincts in Melbourne’s south-east between Cheltenham and Box Hill, via a 26-kilomentre twin underground tunnel.

The project will create up to 800 direct early jobs, ahead of up to 20 000 jobs during the project’s major construction process, as well as kickstarting the careers of 2000 apprentices, trainees and cadets.

As well, we are delivering $2 billion for Geelong Fast Rail, supporting more than 2800 jobs at the peak of construction.

But we should aspire to do more than just return to where we were before—we’re committed to a fairer and stronger recovery.

That’s why we’re making fundamental reforms, including:

• ensuring an inclusive education for all kids with disability;

• investing in free kinder in 2021 and targeted support for children facing educational disadvantage, plus further kinder upgrades as we get ready for universal three-year-old kinder;

• delivering new school tutors;

• a new Recovery Workforce; and

• more health care delivered at home.

It also means ensuring that workers aren’t forced to have to choose between their health and feeding their families. This pandemic has made it clear just how real that choice is for far too many Victorians in insecure work.

That’s why we will develop a new Secure Work Pilot Scheme. Once in place, the pilot will provide up to five days of sick and carers pay at the national minimum wage for casual or insecure workers in the most vulnerable industries.

With kids back in the classroom, we want to make sure our students have the gyms, libraries and learning spaces they deserve.

That includes delivering the biggest single boost to school infrastructure in the state’s history, bringing the total investment in improving and building new schools to more than $9 billion over the past five years.

We’re continuing our massive investment in rebuilding of our schools with more than $3 billion in school upgrades, including $1.1 billion as part of the previously announced building works package, with a further $1.9 billion building blitz to roll out the next phase of the school building boom—which is expected to support more than 6400 jobs across the state.

In my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region, the following 14 schools received funding for capital improvements:

• Lyndale Secondary College: $10.8 million

• Parktone Primary School: $3.47 million

• South Oakleigh Secondary College: $8.93 million. This is in addition to the $992 000 through the Infrastructure Planning and Acceleration Fund.

• Strathaird Primary School: $10 million

• Alkira Secondary College: $1 million

• Carrum Downs Secondary College: $2.75 million

• Carwatha College P–12: $4.21 million

• Gleneagles Secondary College: $3.30 million

• Hampton Park Secondary College: $7.56 million. This is in addition to the $563 000 through the Infrastructure Planning Acceleration Fund.

• Karingal Primary School: $4.11 million

• Kingswood Primary School: $6.25 million. This is in addition to the $694 000 through the Infrastructure Planning and Acceleration Fund.

• Mentone Park Primary School: $4 million

• Oakleigh South Primary School: $8.85 million

• Westall Primary School: $7.20 million

Plus, funding for land to be acquired in the Casey local government area through our Building Works Package for:

• Camms Road Primary School (Interim Name).

The following five specialist schools in my electorate received funding to improve their facilities in the biggest investment in specialist schools in Victoria’s history:

• Emerson School: $14.04 million, in addition to the $1.56 million through the Infrastructure Planning and Acceleration Fund.

• Frankston Special Developmental School: $12.63 million

• Marnebek School Cranbourne: $38.84 million

• Monash Special Developmental School: $10 million

• Nepean Special School: $2.84 million

An additional 31 schools in my electorate received funding to fast-track priority projects through our $70 million Minor Capital Works Fund.

This year has reaffirmed—nothing matters more than your health and the health of people you love.

There is a massive increase in funding for our hospitals, for important surgeries and support for our nurses and paramedics, who have been incredible during the pandemic.

This budget delivers $2 billion to build new hospitals and upgrading existing ones, including $562 million towards the expansion of Frankston Hospital which will see the hospital grow with extra capacity for 120 hospital beds, two new operating theatres, 13 new emergency department beds and new women’s and children’s health services.

It also includes funding for land acquisition for the Cranbourne Community Hospital.

The budget also delivers a brand-new $200 million Metropolitan Health Infrastructure Fund to fund upgrades across our suburban health services as well as providing additional funding to our Regional Health Infrastructure Fund—ensuring no matter where you live, every family can have confidence in care close to home.

We’ll also continue our work to fix our broken mental health system, with nearly $870 million to extend mental health services to more Victorians and implement the Royal Commission into Mental Health’s interim recommendations.

This investment will help more Victorians as we begin our recovery, with new beds, more staff and dedicated one-on-one support for those most in need.

There is so much more in this budget, including for our local area as we build a stronger, more resilient and more caring community, so much so that I don’t have enough time to speak about them all today.

This budget responds to the scale of the challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic by investing $49 billion in the things that matter to Victorians.

And we’re using our balance sheet to protect household budgets and support employment, business and consumer confidence.

As the economy strengthens, our budget position will strengthen.

This government chose to defend jobs, create jobs, protect families and recover—we chose to put the interests of Victorian people, Victorian families and Victorian businesses front and centre.

And I’m proud to be part of a government that has delivered a budget that ensures Victorians are supported, their work is valued, and their livelihoods are secure.

But more than anything else, it puts people first. I commend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Ms PULFORD: I move:

That the dinner break be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended 5.56 pm until 6.35 pm.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (18:35)

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I wonder if I could first take the minister to a number of questions which were put on notice with her via Mr Davis. As members of the house will know, this year’s budget papers do not include the capital budget paper—the traditional budget paper 4—which normally sets out allocation of capital to different projects and progress reports on different projects. Nonetheless the government obviously is still seeking an appropriation for capital projects and is seeking an ordinary appropriation bill. So Mr Davis submitted a number of questions on notice I think either through the minister or directly to the Treasurer in relation to those projects.

If I read the questions onto Hansard I wonder if the minister could provide, obviously on notice in tabulated form because they are extensive lists, the answers to those questions. The first question that Mr Davis put through to the Treasurer is: will you provide the house in tabular form any current variation in dollars to the total estimated investment in the new and existing Department of Transport and VicTrack projects listed in the 2019–20 state capital program? This is obviously last year’s version of the document which is not with us this year.

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. Yes, I can confirm the obvious: that BP4 in its normal format has not been included in this year’s budget. I can confirm that both the Department of Treasury and Finance and the government place a high premium on producing high-quality and informative budget papers every year; however, as we know, 2020 has thrown up many unique challenges and has been quite different to ordinary years.

It was DTF that made a recommendation to government that the budget products be streamlined in this year’s budget while at the same time ensuring that all critical information on new policy and state aggregates is presented. As Mr Rich-Phillips has identified, the state capital program would normally contain data and progress reports on projects. A lot of that, because of COVID, is ongoing and was unable to be completed as it normally would be. There is obviously a commitment to publish this material in the next budget.

On the point of the importance of transparency, there is a lot that is disclosed in the budget papers. As much as possible has been included. Parts of the budget that would normally be in budget paper 4 are sort of scattered throughout some of the other budget papers. For example, in budget paper 3, ‘Service Delivery’, all new capital projects are outlined. In lieu of the standalone budget paper on the capital program, budget paper 2, chapter 5, provides all the information usually included in chapter 1 of the state capital budget publication. As an aggregate level, DTF is confident the cost data on existing projects is materially correct. In relation to timing, updates on phasings and delivery time frames of existing projects will, as I said, be provided in next year’s budget. Normally, when I say that, I mean 12 months from now, but as we know, it is less than six months away, given the timing of this year’s budget compared to next year’s budget. So for all new initiatives funded in the 2020–21 budget the project delivery programs have been planned taking into account designing and building infrastructure in a COVID-normal environment.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, thank you for that response. Of course the section titled ‘State Capital Program’ that you have referred to in chapter 5 of BP2 is no substitute for the update project by project which is normally included in the budget papers. While you state that DTF provides an assurance as to things being on track with the aggregate, it is also seeking the appropriation of a great deal of money based on that assurance and in the absence of the usual detail.

I note, though, that the submissions provided to the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, the departmental questionnaires which were provided back to that committee from the individual departments, contain a lot of the detail which is normally in the state capital program on a project by project basis, including projects that are underway. So why was it possible for individual departments to provide that information to PAEC in their questionnaires but not possible for the government to consolidate that in the usual way in the standalone budget paper so that the house has it?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. I think just leaning back to some of the comments that I made previously, BP4 is a very resource-intensive process, and many departments had COVID responsibilities as well as other responsibilities. So the resources required to compile BP4 and the time taken to collate, update and assure financial delivery of information for what we are talking about is for around 2000 projects. It was DTF’s advice that the budget papers would not be able to contain budget paper 4 this year. However, as I indicated, the information is being collated as we speak. Well, they are probably not doing it right now—it is just us that are still working now—but it is an ongoing process. So they were able to provide information that was available to them, but not a complete package, as you would appreciate.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Mr Davis also sought, in respect of the same list of projects, information on the actual 2019–20 expenditure on the new and existing projects—again, Department of Transport and VicTrack—the remaining expenditure on those projects and the estimated completion dates on new projects and existing projects beyond the current financial year. With the information that is being collated now, are you able to provide an undertaking to the house for that information to be provided at the earliest opportunity, which presumably is earlier than the budget in late May of next year? Are you able to provide an undertaking that this information can be provided when the Parliament resumes in February?

Ms SYMES: It is not the intention of the government to produce a BP4 ahead of the release of next year’s budget. When it comes to information that is available per project, we try to be as transparent as possible in relation to delivery of those projects. So I cannot give you an undertaking that it will be all the projects, but there will be information provided when asked for et cetera, when it is available. And when it comes to some of those larger projects, just in terms of the timing, we have obviously got contracts with companies that are delivering those, and we expect that those time lines, as per the contracts, will be maintained.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. I would like to move to some of the aggregate numbers in the budget this year, in particular the infrastructure spend which the government has programmed over the forward estimates, which is $19 billion in the current year and roughly $19 billion over each of the forward estimates. Standard & Poor’s in their assessment of the Victorian budget and to a certain extent their assessment of the Victorian economy, which was released on Tuesday, I think it was, when the credit rating for the state was downgraded, made the observation that their expectation is that only around 85 per cent of the capital program will be delivered due to cost overruns and shortage of skilled labour which they assess as a problem nationwide, as all states in Australia and the commonwealth are engaging in infrastructure programs—stretched resources. So their assessment—and the basis on which they have assessed the downgrade to the Victorian credit rating—is that only 85 per cent of the capital program will be delivered. What level of confidence does the government have that it can deliver the full program, as set out in the budget, given S&P certainly do not think it can?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. The Andrews Labor government has demonstrated to Victorian communities that it is very good at infrastructure. It is something that we pride ourselves on—taking on ambitious projects that are important to our state. We are focused very much on getting people back to work as part of an economic recovery package, and therefore investment in infrastructure is very important. We also have to make appropriate investments to support delivery of infrastructure such as ensuring that the market has capacity to absorb the increased infrastructure investment through initiatives like free TAFE, initiatives to grow our construction workforce and other skills development and workforce attraction methods.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, the budget sets out or plans for an increase in net debt to $155 billion over the forward estimates. However, containing debt to that level is contingent upon the government delivering the deficits, or pulling back the deficits, as forecast over the forward estimates period. Obviously this year the deficit is forecast at $23 billion, and the estimate for next year is coming back to $13 billion and decreasing from there. In order to do that, though, the budget forecasts a substantial reduction in expenditure. This year’s expenditure is $89.9 billion. The budget relies on that dropping to $84 billion next year.

Over the life of this government every forecast of expenditure that has been made has not been met. Growth in expenses every year has exceeded that which has been forecast by the Treasurer over the six budgets he has delivered. So how can we have confidence, when the Treasurer has never been able to rein in expenditure in any other year he has produced a budget, that he is now going to be able to not only rein in expenditure growth but actually cut expenditure by the $5 billion which is necessary to deliver this budget and therefore deliver this debt outcome?

Ms SYMES: Mr Rich-Phillips, as I think is well known, this budget is designed to inject a huge stimulus into the Victorian economy and get people back into work—a lot of one-off projects, a lot of one-off spending—to really kickstart that program of recovery. That is not something that is sustainable, it is something that is necessary, and therefore the stepping out of it and stepping towards a future surplus is well set out in the budget papers themselves. In fact budget paper 2, page 2, sets out how the government seeks to plan for the future steps in the spending, then returning to operating cash surplus, then operating surpluses and then ultimately moving to stabilising debt levels. So it is certainly a plan, and it has to start big so that it can have maximum impact to ensure that the economy can recover before our balance sheet can.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. It is true that some of the reduced spending is going to be the support programs, but it is also the case that the budget calls out a lot of that spending reduction to be in the areas of purchase of supplies and consumables, which is forecast as a fall from $10.2 billion to $8.3 billion. That is a $2 billion cut in the purchase of consumables in one year. In the area of purchase of services it is to fall from $14.6 billion to $13.2 billion, so a fall of $1.4 billion in 12 months. There is not much record of meeting savings targets in previous years. How are we going to meet those reductions in expenditures, particularly given they are purchases from external providers? How are they going to be met in such a tight time frame—such a substantial reduction in such a tight time frame?

Ms SYMES: Mr Rich-Phillips, I might respond with some examples of how we can see those spends coming down. In relation to consumables, a lot of expense has gone into medical supplies and PPE and the like, so that is something that we hope we will have no future need to spend that much money on. And when it comes to services, obviously in a response and recovery sense, much like the bushfire response, you have an intensive response to ease recovery. Whether it is workplace support—a lot of those exterior bodies will be engaged to help people navigate back into employment—obviously we are going to have intensive mental health support for those that need it. There are a lot of emergency response needs that as we step out and recover will start to fall away.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. I certainly take your point about medical purchases, health purchases, dropping away into the next year. But also listed in the same area—it is page 28 of budget paper 4, for your information—medicinal and pharmaceutical purchases are separated out, and that is a $1 billion reduction, but one of the other categories is ‘Other purchase of supplies and consumables’, which I presume are general supplies and consumables, which are reducing by $900 million in a year. Now, that is more than any single-year savings target that the government has set across government in any other year. Again, Standard & Poor’s noted that savings targets had not been met, and indeed this year the government has decided to defer them, so in what areas do you expect to save $900 million on the purchase of supplies and consumables—general ones, not health ones—when that has not been achieved in any other year?

Ms SYMES: I will seek some advice from the box, but the other example would be the reduced use of stationery and paper in offices as lots of people are moving to do more online things—

Mr Rich-Phillips: That’s a lot of paper.

Ms SYMES: You asked for examples. I was getting one for you. I am going to get some more advice for you. We might take some time to get you some more examples, if I can come back to that later.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. I touched on the debt target—debt forecast, I should say—of $155 billion by 2023–24. The budget strategy indicates that one of the objectives of the budget is to reduce the cash deficit and then the net result deficit, and indeed the budget papers forecast that occurring, with the cash deficit coming back to $1.8 billion in the final forward estimates year. But if that is achieved and the government intends to maintain an infrastructure program, is it not the case that we will expect to see debt rise even higher than $155 billion, because by 2024 you are still not forecasting a cash surplus, and presumably the government will want to continue infrastructure spending? So you have basically got a choice: you either cut or eliminate infrastructure spending or debt rises further. Can you confirm, assuming you are going to keep investing in infrastructure, that debt is actually going to rise more than the $155 billion that has been set out?

Ms SYMES: Mr Rich-Phillips, because these are decisions for future budgets, it is a bit difficult for me to forecast future investment in infrastructure. You are right; as a government, infrastructure is something that is very important to us, but I—

Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.

Ms SYMES: I cannot tell you something that we have not decided yet.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, is it conceivable that it does go from $19 billion to zero?

Ms SYMES: I think you are asking me for my opinion.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Well, no, I am asking, within the framework the government set, is it conceivable that you would have infrastructure investment going from $19 billion in 2023–24 dropping to zero in 2024–25?

Ms SYMES: On the existing projects you want that to go down to zero?

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. And the government would propose to have no new projects.

Ms SYMES: As per my previous answer, that would be unlikely, but I cannot forecast our future budget announcements.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Just on that point then, your previous answer, is it the government’s expectation that all this infrastructure spend is completed by the end of 2023–24?

Ms SYMES: No. It is a pipeline.

Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.

Ms SYMES: Not everything.

Mr Rich-Phillips interjected.

Ms SYMES: Not within four years, but ultimately the existing projects will go to zero.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, the only other question I want to raise tonight—I am conscious of the time, and no-one else wants to be here—is the issue of the stimulus effect of the deficit spending. The budget papers have around $49 billion of deficit spending over the four years of the forward estimates. However, buried in the budget papers is an assessment by Deloitte Access Economics that says the stimulus effect of this budget is $44 billion—about a $44 billion contribution to gross state product. So my question is: why is the government spending $49 billion in deficit spending, pump priming, when the assessed benefit of that is only a $44 billion contribution to economic output?

Ms SYMES: I think the crux of your question is probably reflected in the first answer that I gave to your first question in relation to unprecedented times warranting an unprecedented budget. Obviously this budget has had to respond to the scale of challenges with a lot of investment to rebuild our state and make sure that Victorian families and businesses can recover also. So, as is no secret, we have taken a strategy that is very similar to the federal government, which has been supported by many commentators, including the RBA governor, in relation to using our balance sheet to help protect household budgets, support employment and business and grow consumer confidence.

So, as you have noted, the budget funds up to $49 billion of things that I guess matter to Victorians. They are issues that will rebuild our economic recovery. As we have said, our focus is on getting people back into work, which is why we have a jobs plan which has a very ambitious goal of creating 400 000 jobs by 2025, with the aim of half of those by 2022. And, yes, Deloitte Access Economics identified the budget will also generate $44 billion in new economic activity in Victoria, but this is a strategy that we think is the right way to ensure that we are giving Victorians the very best opportunity to recover and recover as quickly as possible, and we are using our budget to do that.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Just to follow that up, Minister, how does it make sense, how is it in the state’s interest, to be borrowing—because we are borrowing—$49 billion, which is the total deficit to pump into the economy, when according to Deloitte it is only generating $44 billion of benefit?

Ms SYMES: I would argue, Mr Rich-Phillips, that we are not comparing like for like. This is important investment that will make a big difference to ensuring people can get back to work and see our economy recover, as well as the state’s budget.

Mr ONDARCHIE: As we examine the 2020–21 state budget, I have reflected on the 2019–20 capital program that was issued, specifically pages 15 and 16, where it talks about the northern roads upgrade in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. Specifically it talks about fixing priority roads such as Craigieburn Road, Epping Road and Childs Road in my electorate. Further, I refer you to the Major Road Projects Victoria correspondence with local residents about Craigieburn Road, which talked about construction in mid to late 2020 which will add an extra lane in each direction between Mickleham Road and the Hume Highway; install traffic lights to replace the roundabouts at Mickleham Road, Waterview Boulevard and Hardy Street; create new walking and cycling paths; install new traffic lights at Balyang Way, Dorchester Street and Cimberwood Drive; and do a whole lot of things associated with the Craigieburn Road upgrade, including new pedestrian crossings at the traffic lights near the Craigieburn Sports Stadium. This was an election commitment by the Andrews government in October 2018. Here we are over two years on and over 12 months since the community update was provided by Major Road Projects Victoria. There is no reference to the Craigieburn Road project in this current budget. So, Minister, I ask you: when will the Craigieburn Road project be finished?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, as you have identified, it is not part of the budget. Therefore it is difficult for me to respond to you. I am not the minister that is responsible for transport infrastructure, so it is just not something that I have prepared for, nor is it something that I have material on.

Mr ONDARCHIE: So, Minister, if you are identifying that it is not an element of the budget, is that project now off the table?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, this is very much a question that would be more appropriately directed to the relevant minister, and there is a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee process afoot where these specific questions about portfolio responsibilities and project delivery could be asked. I am just not expected to have on hand the details of every particular project.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms SYMES: Well, as you have identified, it is not even relevant to the bill that we are discussing today because it is not in it. Where it is up to I am not sure, but what I can confirm is that the Labor government is committed to delivering all of its election commitments, so if indeed it is an election commitment, I can assure you it will be completed.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, that is a very disappointing response given you are the Leader of the Government that has carriage of this legislation through the house today. To be able to say, ‘Well, it’s not in the bill so I’m not going to talk about it’ is totally unacceptable to the people of the northern suburbs, and to refer me to other places such as parliamentary committees or direct me to ministers when you are the Leader of the Government ensuring passage of this through the house today is an unacceptable response, so I will take on board the fact that—

Ms Symes: Your constituents expect you to know who to ask. Do your job.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I have done it several times, and I will remind you, Minister, that it took 128 days for this government to respond to something from me, so do not—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie! Order! Mr Ondarchie, through the Chair, please.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Through the Chair, if the minister has not got the capacity to answer questions on the budget, then we should just report progress perhaps. Minister, I refer you to the community update by Major Road Projects Victoria on Epping Road in November 2019 that talked about construction that would commence in mid to late 2020. Nothing has happened on that project despite—

Ms Symes: Which project?

Mr ONDARCHIE: This is the Epping Road upgrade project in my electorate.

Ms Symes: Where is that in the budget bill?

Mr ONDARCHIE: Well, that is what I am asking you. Given it was a commitment in the previous budget, I am asking where we are up to on this.

Ms Symes: Is it in this bill?

Mr ONDARCHIE: It is not specifically in this legislation, in this budget. I am asking where it is.

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, with respect, I admire your commitment to your communities and your wanting to seek answers on particular projects. I am debating the state budget here tonight, which is the 2020–21 budget. You have got other ministers who are responsible for delivery of projects. I do not have a status update on every project in your electorate, whether it is a school or a road, and it is inappropriate to try and extract those answers through this process when you have got appropriate means. As a member of Parliament who has been here for some time you know the correct avenues, and it is not this one.

Mr ONDARCHIE: I acknowledge the minister’s response that because it is not specifically outlined in the budget—yet it was in the previous budget—it is inappropriate to ask those questions. I will relay that back to my constituency about the government’s position on this, without any question. So, Minister, let me ask you: given in the forward estimates Victoria’s debt will rise to about $155 billion, could you outline to the house what the government’s forward plan is to pay down that debt?

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mr Ondarchie. As I guess I outlined in our conversations with Mr Rich-Phillips, this is a four-step plan in relation to delivery of a budget that will stimulate economic recovery and use the strength of our balance to repair the hardship of the coronavirus on businesses, families and indeed workers. We are following the blueprint of jurisdictions around Australia and the world to use our own budget to protect household budgets. We cannot fix the economy until we have addressed the public health crisis. We are now in a much better position than so many jurisdictions right around the world. Our economy can return to a position of growth, and this budget is designed to give it the kickstart that it needs. I would point out that our increases in debt are by the same percentage points as the commonwealth government over the forward estimates. This is a strategy that has been endorsed by the RBA governor, who has told us to do this. Quotes from him in particular are that:

A downgrade of credit ratings doesn’t concern me.

What is of more concern is that people don’t have jobs. To borrow now, to make sure that the economy is recovering strongly and that people have jobs, I think is entirely sensible.

As outlined, Mr Ondarchie, step 1 is about creating jobs, reducing unemployment and restoring economic growth; step 2 will be about returning to an operating cash surplus; step 3, returning to an operating surplus; and step 4 is about stabilising the debt levels. So the plan for returning to a good position is set out and the explanation as to why this budget is doing what it is has been well documented.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, the Hoddle Street upgrade, which seems to be going on for a long period of time, was initially promised to be $60 million as a project. The last update we got—gee, some time ago now—was $108.6 million. That is a $48.6 million cost blowout on that project. Can we have an update on what the actual cost of that project is to date, please?

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, as explained in my conversations with Mr Rich-Phillips, in taking DTF’s advice, it was not in a position to produce a fulsome BP4 this budget. For the next budget we have given a commitment to having those capital project updates, and therefore in about six months time it will contain all the details in relation to the projects and their progress.

Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Minister. Minister, surely DTF must know on a rolling basis what the statuses of projects are. Why would we need to wait until at the very least May 2021 to get an update on a project that was started some years ago?

Ms SYMES: I do acknowledge, Mr Ondarchie, that you have been in here since the start of our conversations. I have addressed this. This is a year where there has been much disruption and that has led to an inability to adequately compile in detail, with confidence, the accuracy of all of the substantial projects because of our substantial infrastructure program. That work is ongoing and will be provided in the next budget, which is less than six months away.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 14 agreed to; schedules 1 to 6 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (19:12): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources) (19:12): Thank you, Deputy President, for your committee proceedings this year. This is the last one for the year; well done. I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.

Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020

Introduction and first reading

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (19:14): I have a message from the Assembly:

The Legislative Assembly presents for the agreement of the Legislative Council ‘A Bill for an Act to prohibit change or suppression practices, to amend certain definitions in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 and for other purposes’.

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:14): I move:

That the bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Read first time.

Ms STITT: I move, by leave:

That the second reading be taken forthwith.

Motion agreed to.

Statement of compatibility

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:15): I lay on the table a statement of compatibility with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006:

Opening paragraphs

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020.

In my opinion, the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020, as introduced to the Legislative Council, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview

The Bill will:

• denounce and prohibit change or suppression practices;

• create criminal offences which target:

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

• persons who advertise change or suppression practices; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights Issues

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

The Bill engages several rights under the Charter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to life (section 9)

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

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

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

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

• persons who advertise change or suppression practices; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to freedom of movement (section 12)

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

The nature of the right

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

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

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

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

The nature and extent of the limitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

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

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

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

Right to privacy and reputation (section 13)

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

• compel production of information or documents; and

• compel attendance.

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

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

The nature of the right

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

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

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

The nature and extent of the limitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

The nature of the right

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

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

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

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

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

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

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

The nature and extent of the limitation

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

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

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

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

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

Participation in facilitation and education is voluntary.

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

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

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to freedom of expression (section 15)

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

The nature of the right

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

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

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

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

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

The nature and extent of the limitation

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to culture (section 19)

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

The nature of the right

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

The importance of the purpose of the limitation

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

The nature and extent of the limitation

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

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the limitation and its purpose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hon Gayle Tierney MP

Minister for Training and Skills

Minister for Higher Education

Second reading

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:15): I move:

That the second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

I want to draw to the attention of the house amendments that were made in the Assembly. The amendments were added to this bill in the Assembly following its introduction. The amendments to clause 59 of the bill had the effect of fixing a typo in the definitions clause to reflect the intention of the definition of ‘gender identity’.

Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, Deputy President, can the minister just outline that amendment to us again? We got it verbally. There is no hard copy of it, so we are just trying to relate to where that is in the bill.

Ms STITT: The house amendment that was made in the Assembly is to clause 59 of the bill, and it had the effect of fixing a typo in the definitions clause to reflect the intention of the definition of ‘gender identity’.

Motion agreed to.

Ms STITT: I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Incorporated speech as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of change or suppression practices

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

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

The definition of change or suppression practice has three elements:

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

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

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

This definition captures a range of conduct, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitions in the EO Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other reforms

The Bill will also amend the:

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of the enforcement of the prohibition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survivor led civil response scheme

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

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

VEOHRC will be able to:

• provide community education around change or suppression practices;

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

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

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

VEOHRC will always be required to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• indicates a possible contravention of the prohibition; and

• relates to a class or group of persons.

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

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

Criminal offences

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

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

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

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

• advertising a change or suppression practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the offences will apply also to body corporates.

Independent review of the Bill

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

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

• the criminal offences are effective;

• the existing civil scheme is effective;

• broader investigation or enforcement powers are required; and

• a redress scheme should be developed.

Commencement

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

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

I commend the Bill to the house.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:16): I move, on behalf of my colleague Mr O’Donohue:

That debate be adjourned for one week.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned for one week.

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Written responses

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (19:17): The President has decided to order a written response to a question—the substantive question only—by Dr Bach to Ms Stitt in question time today on kindergarten funding.

Ms Stitt: Can I just clarify, because there were two questions today about kindergarten funding, which question it was?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question was, ‘On 10 November the Andrews government announced that kinder will be free to all Victorian children, so why did it take until 30 November for kindergartens to be advised that free kinder was actually an optional funding scheme?’. It is the substantive question of his first question.

Ms Stitt: Can I just clarify, is it two days?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, two business days, I am advised.

Adjournment

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:18): I move:

That the house do now adjourn.

Autism education

Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (19:19): I wish to raise a matter in the adjournment this evening for the very last time in 2020 for the Minister for Education. I have received an email from a constituent who tells me that she believes she has two boys who have been subject to indirect discrimination regarding the provision of appropriate and timely educational opportunity. Her son Luke is 15 years old, and he attends the Western Autistic School’s adolescent program called Wattle. The program was offered to support secondary school children with ASD with additional mental health issues who had disengaged or were at risk of disengagement from a mainstream school. I know from personal experience the impact that that particular problem can have. She says:

The Wattle program is under the auspice of the Western Autistic School and had been operating from a location in Ascot Vale.

Staff and parents received notification on the last day of term 3 this year that the program was to be moved to Essendon-Keilor Secondary College … for Term 4.

Western Autistic no longer wants to run this program for a number of reasons and is shadowing the closure of the Wattle program without giving due regard to a genuine pathway for the current students, my son included. The rhetoric is that now these students are entitled to be enrolled in, and should be enrolled in a mainstream school. The reality is that these students, my son in particular, have been significantly impacted and traumatised from their past enrolments in mainstream school to the point of disengagement and the emergence of complex mental health issues.

She says:

This is not a suitable alternate placement for my son. The decision will have a disadvantageous impact on his current and future presentation and educational opportunities.

Parents of kids with autism have enough on their plate without having to put up with this. It is staggering to me that we have these sorts of problems still occurring where parents are notified that something is happening just like that and they are expected to rearrange basically their entire lives in order to fit in with somebody else’s plans. It seems to me that this particular lady has got a very, very fair case. I think she and those like her—and as she says, she is not the only one—have been dealt a very rough hand on this particular issue, and what I am asking the minister to do is to investigate her issues with Western Autistic School and particularly the Wattle program, and I ask the minister to come up with a solution to this particularly difficult problem.

Better at Home initiative

Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (19:22): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Equality, Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services, the Honourable Martin Foley. The Andrews Labor government has announced investment to give more patients the opportunity to recover from illness or surgery at home with the comfort and familiarity of family and friends as part of the new Better at Home initiative.

The Victorian budget 2020–21 will spend $120.9 million over three years on the program to meet growing demand for health care through increased delivery of hospital services in patients’ homes. This investment will include $102.6 million to provide a range of different types of care at home, including clinic appointments, chemotherapy, post-surgical care and rehabilitation, making a real difference to people’s lives. Virtual care technology will be boosted through a $12.5 million investment to sustain the high rates of telehealth we have achieved during the pandemic and support the development of innovative new models of 21st-century care. A further $5.8 million will help health services to engage the clinical workforce in this transformation of care in Victoria through training, support and clinical redesigns which will provide more options to receive care at home.

Through Better at Home up to 50 000 chemotherapy appointments could be delivered in living rooms across Victoria, or 50 000 days Victorians previously spent in hospital recovering or undertaking rehabilitation could be done from the comfort of home, freeing up around 160 hospital beds. The initiative will also improve quality of care, enabling patients to choose to recover in a familiar environment rather than in hospital if they prefer. Clinical evidence shows patients achieve better outcomes at home where they avoid the physical deterioration, sleep disruption and social isolation associated with hospital stays.

The growth of telehealth during the coronavirus pandemic will also benefit from the Better at Home initiative, with more consultations able to be done with recovering patients through electronic channels. Through the initiative funding will be available for health services to design and implement shared service models for home-based and virtual care, enabling them to upscale and specialise quickly. This initiative will be welcomed by a lot of families in my constituency of the Western Metropolitan Region. The action I seek from the minister is to provide my office with an update on the time line for the commencement of this initiative and to provide details of what the health services in the western suburbs need to do to participate in this important initiative.

Anglesea mine rehabilitation

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (19:24): My matter for this evening is for the Minister for Regional Development. But I recognise that the matter I am raising could easily be directed to several ministers because it covers several different portfolios, so I am happy for it to land wherever it needs to land. The action I seek is for the approval of the Eden Project in Anglesea, a project I have been working to advance for now a very long time.

The Eden Project is unique in that it will not only rehabilitate the old coalmine at Alcoa Anglesea but create an extraordinary experience——and to call it an ecotourism project does it no justice at all. It will unify elements of landscape, flora and fauna with the involvement of and sensitivity to the Wadawurrung people, and create job opportunities, not only during construction but afterwards. It also commits to local procurement, providing income and employment for local businesses. The jewel in the crown will be the mine void. Once just an ugly hole in the ground, it is being extensively reshaped and replanted, but water remains the issue to be solved. Last month Alcoa received an amended groundwater licence from Southern Rural Water to conduct a 12-month pumping test of the Upper Eastern View Formation aquifer. This will enable further investigation of the use of groundwater to commence the filling process and add to the natural filling that has occurred during the winter rains.

Will the minister join me, the Eden Project and Alcoa and work with all necessary departments and other ministers to approve this once-in-a-lifetime project that will be so important not just for the post-COVID recovery but for the local people for generations into the future?

Victoria Police database

Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (19:26): My adjournment debate matter is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The law enforcement assistance program is the database used by Victoria Police to record information about all reported criminal incidents. The database therefore contains a considerable amount of private information on Victorians, which is accessible to various divisions of our brave and diligent police force. It is obviously integral to the operation and efficacy of our police force that they have a database to collect information on matters reported to them. However, I have grave concerns over revelations that I have been made aware of that every licensed firearms holder has had a file created on the database. This appears to be irrespective of whether they have been involved in a criminal incident, as is the purpose of the database. This apparently even includes members of Parliament, both state and federal, as well as under-age junior firearms licence holders.

The minister must assure the Victorian community that this is in fact not the case and that personal information is not being recorded merely on the basis that someone is a licensed firearms holder. Having a firearms licence is not a crime, I suggest to the minister, and in fact the vast majority of licence-holders are law-abiding citizens who participate in legitimate recreational activities or use firearms for important agricultural purposes. Given the law enforcement assistance program database is widely accessible to Victoria Police officers, it is a significant invasion of privacy for such information to be collected and recorded about individuals who otherwise would have had no interaction with the database. I call on the minister, and the action I seek is for her to clarify these matters and reveal the extent and frequency with which the law enforcement assistance program is audited.

The Orange Door

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (19:28): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence, and the action I seek is for Melton to be named as a primary site for the Orange Door service. Now, Melton City Council has been advocating to the state government for an Orange Door service for some time, and the location for the Brimbank-Melton Orange Door is yet to be announced. However, the localised service delivered in Melton is urgent. Family violence increased during COVID, as has been well documented, with the statewide figure of a 15.3 per cent increase. In Melton, however, there has been an increase of 39.8 per cent compared to Brimbank, which is at 3.7 per cent. With service delivery already provided in Brimbank there will be no increased service in Melton. That is under the current model. Additionally, there is no specific family violence service located in the City of Melton and visiting services are not comprehensive and not available every day.

We have had reports of six-month waiting lists for case management at specialist family violence services in the City of Melton, and family violence rates are expected to increase even further as services reopen and victims are better able to disclose and seek support. The social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated gender inequality in the community post pandemic, and our residents and our local services need more support. Gaps in public transport make accessing services in Sunshine and Footscray impossible for some people in the City of Melton. There is no public transport. Victims of family crime often have a short window where they can safely access a service, so it is not always possible for them to access a service outside their area. An Orange Door in the City of Melton will support families to have a better chance to both find safe accommodation locally in times of crisis and continue to be supported by their existing support networks, including family and friends. In response to my question in June, the minister advised that the government was in the process of rolling out an Orange Door network statewide, including Melton. We need this now as a priority.

Bendigo showgrounds redevelopment

Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (19:31): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Regional Development, and it concerns the planned redevelopment of the Bendigo showgrounds. The action that I seek from the minister is for her to provide a commitment to contribute state government funding of $2.5 million towards stages 1 and 2 of the multistage Bendigo showgrounds redevelopment project in order to meet the long-term needs of the Bendigo and central Victorian communities.

The Prince of Wales Showgrounds, better known as the Bendigo showgrounds, opened at their current 18-hectare location in 1968. The showgrounds precinct is one of the largest in regional Victoria and boasts the largest showgrounds arena in the entire state. The showgrounds host many major events, including the Australian Sheep and Wool Show, the Bendigo Agricultural Show, Groovin the Moo and the Bendigo National Swap Meet and welcome approximately 600 000 patrons each year. It is the home of the Bendigo Agricultural Show Society and 16 other local clubs and organisations, but the ageing infrastructure at the precinct is not meeting the contemporary needs of its users.

In 2019 the City of Greater Bendigo, in partnership with the ag society and Regional Development Victoria, commissioned a master plan and business case for a 10-stage redevelopment of the Bendigo showgrounds. The primary objective of this document was to ensure the facility caters to current and future user needs, is financially viable and continues to generate regional economic and social benefits to the City of Greater Bendigo. Stages 1 and 2 of the redevelopment consist of a complete upgrade of the existing market sheds; the construction of a new multipurpose market pavilion, a covered market, stall spaces and new toilet amenities; and landscaping around the new pavilion. The estimated cost to complete stages 1 and 2 of the redevelopment is $5.25 million, and the City of Greater Bendigo is seeking a state government contribution of $2.5 million. The completion of stages 1 and 2 of the redevelopment will greatly assist the Bendigo economy, creating many local jobs during construction and attracting an estimated additional 5000 visitors to the region each year.

Budget 2020–21

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (19:34): My adjournment matter is for the Treasurer. The Treasurer has announced $85 billion in spending. Throughout his budget papers the Treasurer argues that this government’s spending will create new jobs. This logic is easy to follow. When the government spends $500 000 to build a house it employs builders, architects, bricklayers, concreters, electricians, plumbers, timber workers, glaziers and landscapers. So case closed: government spending creates jobs—right? Well, that is not the whole picture. And we have known it is not the whole picture for centuries. In 1850 Frédéric Bastiat published That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen, a pamphlet I encourage everyone to read. It is much shorter than the Treasurer’s budget, and it makes a lot more sense too. We see government spending, and we see the jobs it makes; what we do not see are the jobs that were destroyed to fund that spending.

The government does not create the money to build a house from thin air, it takes it from Victorians. If the government did not spend $500 000 to build a new house, then the taxpayer would still have that $500 000. She might use that money to build a house, and that would employ builders, architects, bricklayers, concreters, electricians, plumbers, timber workers, glaziers and landscapers. But if it turns out a house is not what the taxpayer needs, she might instead use that money for something else—and whatever else she spent that money on would have created work. The difference when the government spends the money is that it must also waste money on collecting taxes and administering the government—deadweight loss. Twenty per cent to 40 per cent of government spending is lost to the economy.

Aside from that, the government is much worse at spending our money than we are as individuals. We know best about the things we need to buy, and we work hard for our money and we have every incentive to spend it with care. The government neither knows what we need nor cares to strive for value for money. Overall the more the state spends, the worse off society is. The rest is spin. In his budget the Treasurer has spoken at length about the jobs created by state spending but not at all about the jobs lost to support that spending. So I call on the Treasurer to quantify these losses, be honest with the public and tell us the number of jobs that will be lost to raise the $85 billion in yearly spending.

Upfield rail line duplication

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19:36): Firstly, a happy and holy Christmas to you and your family, President, and to all members and staff here. My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. It concerns the Upfield line in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region. The minister will be aware that I have raised the Upfield line in the past, and in particular the short shunting on the line around Coburg station. The short shunting has annoyed many, many residents of Melbourne’s north. There is a single-line track between Gowrie and Upfield stations and it does not connect through to the Craigieburn line, and because of the substantial population growth in Melbourne’s north that single track is simply not fit for purpose. It is overcrowded, and the timetable is second-rate.

The government needs to focus on infrastructure projects in Melbourne’s north that will generate jobs and deliver meaningful improvements for Victorians as we recover from Daniel Andrews’s hotel quarantine-led second corona wave. The action I seek from the minister is to fund the duplication of the Upfield line between Gowrie and Roxburgh Park, including a connection to the Craigieburn line, to improve an important cross-connection for regional services and, more importantly, create more jobs and opportunities in Melbourne’s north.

Regional community leadership programs

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (19:37): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Regional Development, the Honourable Jaclyn Symes, and it relates to regional community leadership programs that occur right across this great state of ours. I will read into Hansard that there are nine community leadership programs. Some have been running—like the Gippsland Community Leadership Program—for 21 years, and others are still new but very important to the growth of young leaders in our communities. They are Alpine Valleys Community Leadership; Leadership Ballarat and Western Region; Northern Mallee Leaders; as I said, Gippsland Community Leadership Program; Leadership Great South Coast; Lead Loddon Murray, Goulburn Murray Community Leadership; Leaders for Geelong; and Leadership Wimmera.

These fantastic organisations do bring the next round of leaders to our community. They educate, they share, they create experiences to grow and develop and they make networks. Indeed the Gippsland Community Leadership Program, as I said, is nearly 21 years old. It has 600 alumni. It has very illustrious people who have been through the program, indeed including Ken Lay, who I am sure should have an honour or some sort of honorific next to his name. Bridget McKenzie is also a graduate, and there are many other local councillors and corporate businesspeople who have gone through these programs.

Now, very important that they are, they have no funding. There is no funding in the budget, and the board members of Regional Leadership Australia are very concerned. They would respectfully ask that the minister provides that surety that there will be ongoing funding for these great programs. Hence and otherwise, that is my adjournment—that the minister actually meets with them as a matter of urgency because some of them are about to run out of funding and will not be able to put up their next 2021 programs. So please, Minister, the action I ask is that you meet with the board membership to facilitate the ongoing funding of these great programs.

Birralee Primary School

Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (19:40): My adjournment is for the Minister for Education in the other house. There is nothing that inspires me more as a member of this place than passionate advocacy from constituents who care about our local area—and never more so than when it comes to advocacy on behalf of schools. Members of this house would know that as a former teacher and school leader myself I take a special interest in education policy, outcomes and investment. That is why, when many parents of students at Birralee Primary School in Doncaster recently contacted my office detailing how desperate they were for funding, I felt compelled to jump on board. Birralee has grown from only 164 students in 2013 to an expected 2021 enrolment of 631—an almost fourfold increase. The academic achievement at this school in my electorate is quite outstanding, with top-ranking NAPLAN results, and hardworking staff have also created a school with a culture of nurturing growth for every student.

The school underwent a redevelopment in 2010 with 12 permanent classrooms. However, to cope with the sharp increase in enrolments since that time it now has no fewer than 16 portable classrooms—12 permanent classrooms but 16 portables. These classrooms take up much-needed play space in the school grounds, and in addition the school is still without any multipurpose space to hold an assembly for students. Both of these points are really important. It is so key for students to have green space to play with one another. That is no small thing, and we have learned more about that through this period when students have been at home and away from their friends. As a former school leader, I can also say that I know how key it is for the whole school community to be able to come together in one space to bond and to engage in activities that reinforce that school’s shared values.

The parents contacting me are asking for real investment, with permanent classrooms that are fit for purpose—so the majority of classrooms would no longer be relocatable—and an indoor space, as I said, where every member of the school community or at a minimum every student and staff member can come together. So tonight I call on the minister to deliver these for the students of Birralee Primary School in my electorate.

Seaford community safety

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (19:43): I wish to raise a matter for the attention of the Minister for Police and Emergency Services in the other place, and it relates to escalating incidents of violence and antisocial behaviour in Seaford, on the Seaford foreshore and in the Seaford retail precinct. Residents in that area and indeed traders in that area have for a long time been concerned about gang activity: groups of young people—teenagers, young adults—involved in fights, involved in vandalism, spitting and swearing in public places, engaging in fights with local people and general antisocial behaviour. This problem has been escalating in Seaford for a long period of time. Locals are concerned to go out of their houses, concerned to walk on the beach, concerned to walk down the retail part of Seaford’s Main Street. Sadly, this activity culminated in mid-November in the killing of Cam Smith on the Seaford foreshore. That escalation was a concern that the community had for a long time, and many members of the community are devastated that that was the result in November, after their repeated concerns were ignored.

So the action I seek from the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is to respond to the concerns of the Seaford community, ensure that that community does receive the resources to install and upgrade the CCTV camera network in that community, in and around the beach and in and around the foreshore, and ensure that the police resources are provided to that community to ensure that they do not have to put up with the antisocial behaviour that they have endured for so long and that has now led to the death of a young Seaford resident.

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

Police resources

Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria)

My matter is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Honourable Lisa Neville.

Last week’s Herald Sun reported on the coronial inquest from the Bourke Street incident where an armed man was fatally shot by a new Victoria Police officer.

The article goes on to state that ‘both officers said a taser—only issued to frontline police in regional areas—would have been useful’ and that a ‘police panel reviewing the incident recommended’ an urgent ‘rollout of [tasers] to all operational general duties police’.

This is something I’ve called for since early on in my tenure as an MP.

These officers should have had access to non-lethal weapons to deploy, besides a baton and OC spray.

I raised a question on this matter to the police minister some months ago. The response I received was ‘Beyond [the rollout of Tasers to regional Victorian police officers], the Community Safety Statement 2019–20 commits Victoria Police to examine the further rollout of CEDs (Tasers) to all frontline metropolitan police. This work is currently being considered.’

The reason explained for disparity between country and metro stations, is that ‘general duty officers will always be the first responders to these kinds of high-risk incidents.’

The next sentence in the response says the ‘Community Safety Statement 2019–20 commits Victoria Police to examine the further rollout of CEDs to all frontline metropolitan police.

This indicates to me that the metropolitan police under consideration are on our frontline and therefore are likely to attend high-risk incidents.

The Bourke Street attack just proves this thought as well.

Given this, the action that I seek from the minister is to explain why the decision to roll out tasers to all frontline police has not yet been established and further, when we will see the rollout of tasers to all frontline Victoria Police officers.

Homelessness

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan)

My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Housing, and the action I seek is that the minister ensures everyone leaving temporary hotel accommodation is offered safe, secure and long-term accommodation.

The Greens were very pleased to see the government take action to protect Victorians experiencing homelessness during the pandemic, housing rough sleepers in hotel and motel accommodation over the course of this year. As well as providing people with a safe place to stay during the worst of the pandemic, the secure accommodation meant many residents were able to access proper support for the first time.

But while the government promised the funding for the hotel accommodation program would extend until April next year, we have heard worrying reports that people are already beginning to be evicted from their temporary accommodation. And we’ve heard that many of these people are being asked to return to dangerous and unsafe accommodation, like rooming houses, instead of the long-term rental accommodation that was promised.

Victoria’s response to the pandemic showed us that it is possible for us to end homelessness in our state, by investing in the model that works—giving people a safe place to live, securing long-term housing for everyone who needs it, and making support services available.

So it is disappointing that this government is not prepared to build on the good work and progress made over the past eight months, and instead we are finding people experiencing homelessness returned to the status quo, back to housing providers struggling to find appropriate accommodation, people potentially going back to the street instead of the dodgy unacceptable rooming houses being offered up.

It is not only the responsibility of housing organisations to ensure people have secure accommodation to move into when they leave hotel accommodation. It’s also the responsibility of the government to provide enough funding for homelessness services, and enough housing options, like public housing, for everyone.

But the reality is there is just not enough public housing or indeed community housing available to house everyone who needs a home. And while the government’s recent budget announcement is finally committing to building more housing after decades of neglect, we are also seeing the continuation of the government’s retreat from public housing. And it is now shifting the buck onto homelessness organisations to support people to transition out of temporary hotel accommodation.

We absolutely cannot allow people in hotel accommodation to be evicted back onto the streets or into dangerous and unsafe rooming houses. It is not good enough to say that there are no other options, and that people must accept the accommodation that is offered to them, when the accommodation on offer is clearly unsuitable and unsafe. When our housing crisis is a product of the failures of this government, our government must be doing everything it can to ensure everyone is offered a safe place to call home as they exit hotel accommodation.

I ask the minister to ensure that everyone leaving hotel accommodation is offered long-term safe and secure accommodation, and that nobody exits into homelessness or insecure housing.

Teacher education

Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria)

My matter is for the Minister for Education.

Through it, I seek information about what is currently being done to improve trauma-informed practice in teaching in Victoria.

On first impression, this might sound like an issue that I’m raising purely in the wake of the COVID experience this year. But I assure everyone that’s not the case.

Of course, as very many of us feared would happen, thousands of Victorian children have been seriously challenged in 2020 because of the coronavirus lockdowns and the long duration of them. And it has been very distressing to hear the observations and evidence of many medical professionals about what remains the ongoing, lockdown-related surge in children’s mental health problems.

However, childhood trauma in Victoria is an issue with a much longer history and much wider reach.

In fact, we know that trauma, in many and varied forms, has been exerting a profound impact on Victorian children for a considerable time now. Unfortunately, the existence of the internet, of social media and of associated cyberbullying has also substantially exacerbated this problem over recent decades.

Typically, the general impact of this trauma in individuals’ formative years is also not felt simply in the short term. Frequently, it can even be lifelong, especially if not recognised or successfully addressed early enough. That is certainly true for many children scarred by the more complex forms of trauma triggered by incidents involving interpersonal threats and/or violence such as neglect, poverty, abuse, bullying, family violence and sexual assault.

More happily, in various parts of the world, there has been a growing recognition of, and therefore a growing concentration on, the need to create safer and more understanding learning environments for trauma-affected children.

In part, this has been because of the emergence of numerous important studies that have highlighted the diversity of ways in which trauma in early life can impede a person’s cognitive development and/or emotional intelligence. Foremost among these are difficulties in learning and in relationships as well as a broader sense of disconnection from, and lack of trust or belief in, other people.

One of the points that these studies therefore also reinforce is that, among those adults with the most dysfunctional lives in society, childhood trauma is regularly a common denominator.

I would therefore appreciate the minister’s advice about the specific steps that are currently being taken and the specific forms of leadership, guidance and resources currently being provided by the government to enhance trauma-informed training and practice for teachers in Victoria.

Edinburgh Gardens

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan)

My adjournment matter is for the Treasurer.

The action I seek is for the government to immediately invest in toilet and rubbish bins at Edinburgh Gardens.

Edinburgh Gardens has become very popular as my constituents look to flock to have COVID-safe picnics with their friends.

‘COVID safe’ has meant outside. Young people in particular in my electorate love to flock to Edinburgh Gardens to enjoy a few drinks and catch up with their friends.

Edinburgh Gardens, or Eddy Gardens as it’s known locally, is an institution.

However, it needs help. Residents have raised concerns that there are too many young misusing the park. Some residents want the council to ban alcohol consumption in the park.

That would not solve any of the issues.

Eddy Gardens need more toilets and more rubbish bins to meet the increased patronage. This is definitely a council issue, but council believe they do not have enough money to invest in park amenities. I fear the council will take the cheaper route.

If they banned alcohol, we would criminalise a rite of passage to save a couple hundred grand. This is absurd.

We need more outside events to maintain COVID safety. We should celebrate our wonderful parks.

However, it appears our councils need help to facilitate COVID safety.

The government needs to step in and save Edinburgh Gardens. We saw fantastic investment in our parks in the budget through the ‘safer, better parks fund’. This money has already been allocated, so I know we have just announced a massive budget, but we need to dip in again and save this wonderful park. That is why the action I seek is for the government to immediately invest in new toilet blocks and rubbish facilities at Edinburgh Gardens.

Responses

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (19:45): There were 11 adjournment matters this evening: Mr Finn to the Minister for Education, Ms Vaghela to the Minister for Health, Mr Meddick to the Minister for Regional Development, Mrs McArthur to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Dr Cumming to the Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Ms Lovell to the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Quilty to the Treasurer, Mr Ondarchie to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Ms Bath to the Minister for Regional Development, Dr Bach to the Minister for Education and Mr Rich-Phillips to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. And I have 16 responses to adjournment matters this evening.

The PRESIDENT: On that basis, make sure you have a safe break, and I will see you next year. The house stands adjourned.

House adjourned 7.46 pm until Tuesday, 2 February 2021.

Written adjournment responses

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

Thursday, 10 December 2020

Deer hunting

In reply to Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (18 August 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

As part of our $5.3 million Sustainable Hunting Action Plan released in 2016, the Andrews Labor Government committed to monitor the economic benefits of hunting to inform future decisions and facilitate hunting tourism.

This research indicates that recreational hunting was worth $356 million to the Victorian economy in 2019—of which more than $200 million was attributed to deer hunting.

The final report by RM Consulting Group, Economic contribution of recreational hunting in Victoria, is available at: https://djpr.vic.gov.au/game-hunting/action-plan/growing-the-benefits.

COVID-19

In reply to Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (18 August 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

I am aware of the significant impacts the border closure imposed by the NSW Government has had on local communities who rely on border access for their daily lives. This is particularly true for remote or isolated communities, such as Marshmead, which has been at risk of being cut off entirely from essential supplies like groceries and fuel if they are unable to cross the NSW border.

Together with Victoria’s Cross Border Commissioner, Luke Wilson, I have been leading the Victorian Government’s advocacy for common-sense solutions for challenges posed by the closure.

As a result, on 12 August the NSW Government granted an exemption to residents living in or near 375 Buckland Rd Mallacoota MLC Marshmead Campus. The exemption permits travel to Eden, NSW and travel on NSW roads to Mallacoota. This helped to ensure Marshmead residents had access to essential supplies in NSW and was not cut off from Mallacoota.

I am pleased that travel restrictions between NSW and Victoria has now eased, providing significant relief for our border communities.

I will continue to work to ensure that our border communities can access essential services.

Mountain biking

In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (2 September 2020)

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

The Victorian Government recognises the significant participation increases in mountain biking over recent years and has made substantial investment to support participation and tourism related to the sport.

The Government has invested over $3.5 million in projects in metropolitan and outer Melbourne suburbs to develop tracks and trail sites specifically for mountain bike users. A further $13.9 million is currently invested in partnership with local government agencies across over 20 sites in regional Victoria to develop mountain bike trails. Some of the key projects underway include:

• Warburton Mountain Bike Destination Project.

• Ararat Hills Project.

• Creswick Trail Project.

• Omeo Mountain Bike Trails Project.

The analysis of participation in mountain biking and programs to develop community sporting infrastructure fall within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Community Sport, the Hon Ros Spence MP.

Animal welfare

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (16 September 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Labor Government is supporting not-for-profit and community vet clinics to maintain and expand their Services and providing grants to enable new low-cost clinics to be set up in areas of need around Victoria.

The Victorian Budget 202021 provides an additional $19 million to support pets and animal welfare, including boosting grants to organisations providing free or low-cost desexing of cats and dogs for vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians. Further details about these new grants will be announced soon.

This compliments the desexing voucher scheme—a joint initiative between the Australian Veterinary Association and Municipal Association of Victoria. Councils participating in the program offer desexing discount vouchers to pet owners within their municipality who hold a Centrelink-issued concession card.

Child protection

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (13 October 2020)

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):

I thank the Member for Northern Victoria for her question on my position on early intervention in the Victorian child protection and out-of-home care systems.

I agree that a greater focus on early intervention in child protection and the out-of-home care system—as proposed by the Berry Street/SVA report—is required.

The Andrews Government supports the principles outlined in this report and understands that these issues are becoming more urgent since the coronavirus pandemic began.

Through the Roadmap to Reform, the Andrews Government is committed to transforming the child protection and out-of-home care systems. The Roadmap aims to shift the system to focus on prevention, intervening early and increasing the effectiveness of services that are linked to the delivery of defined outcomes.

The Andrews Government has invested over $60 million in its pioneering Partnerships Addressing Disadvantage initiative, which evidences the early intervention approach and its impact on future service system costs. This includes the COMPASS Social Impact Bond, a partnership between the State, Anglicare Victoria and VincentCare that provides young Victorians with support as they leave the care system. This program aims to provide the evidence base necessary for future policy.

Just like our Government, the Victorian Budget 2020–21 will put people first. The budget delivers $1.3 billion to protect and support children and their families—including reforming care services.

In an Australian first, we will ensure that every young person in out-of-home care can receive support up to the age of 21, making sure they have the stable foundation to begin their lives.

As we recover, we want to build a stronger, fairer Victoria—that begins with our young people and their future.

I acknowledge and commend the Member’s ongoing interest in, and advocacy of, primary prevention and early intervention measures.

Police data

In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (14 October 2020)

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

Victoria Police has zero tolerance for racial profiling and remains committed to continuing to explore the interface of data collection and monitoring initiatives.

Regarding the introduction of a racial profile monitoring system, Victoria Police has:

• Revised the physical indicators for ethnic appearance and made the recording of this mandatory for all new field contact reports as of early 2019.

• Implemented upgrades in IT systems to improve the recording and reporting on the Standard Indigenous Question.

• Established the Transparency and Accountability Monitoring Group (TAMG) in 2018, chaired by the Assistant Commissioner, Professional Standards Command, as a subset of the Chief Commissioner’s Human Rights Strategic Advisory Committee. Its members include the Human Rights Law Centre, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, the Federation of Legal Centres, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, and Youth Law.

• In 2019, the TAMG endorsed the United Kingdom Police Effectiveness, Efficiency and Legitimacy framework (PEEL) as the framework on which to base the collection and reporting of data to support improved transparency, accountability and human rights monitoring across Victoria Police service delivery.

• Developed legitimacy indicators to understand the extent to which Victoria Police:

1. treats all people with fairness and respect

2. ensures its workforce behaves ethically and lawfully

3. treats its workforce with fairness and respect.

• Priority Communities Division is currently partnering with two Police Service Areas (Yarra Ranges and Goldfields) to pilot the application of the PEEL indicators. The information derived from this pilot testing will be presented at the next TAMG meeting early in 2021.

Victoria Police is continuing to work with the TAMG and the final reporting system will be presented at the Chief Commissioner’s Human Rights Strategic Advisory Committee.

Animal welfare legislation

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (27 October 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Victorian Government is committed to modernising animal welfare laws to support better harm prevention, simpler regulation, improved education, and effective penalties. Right now, obligations on farmers and others are spread through multiple Acts, regulations, several national Standards and Guidelines, and almost 30 codes of practice. Our current laws are old and have been amended many times. A modern approach is needed–and one that outlines minimum standards of care, rather than simply making cruelty and abuse illegal.

I note that in their minority report on the Inquiry into the Impact of Animal Rights Activism on Victorian Agriculture, the Liberal-Nationals members of the Committee—including the Member herself—recommended that the Government “consider its modernisation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 to be a matter of priority”.

Animal welfare

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (27 October 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The use of animals in research and teaching in Victoria is highly regulated. Licence holders must submit annual returns detailing activities completed under their licence, including the number and type of animals used and the types of procedures completed.

Many of the dogs and cats reported as being used in research are privately-owned pets enrolled in studies via their vet clinics because they have a condition or disease that is being researched.

Animal Ethics Committees have legal obligations to consider the provisions for the animals used in the research and teaching they oversee for the duration of the animals’ life, including after the research has concluded. Animal Ethics Committees are expected to recommend rehoming wherever possible and are supported by guidelines developed by Animal Welfare Victoria in 2018 in partnership with Beagle Freedom Australia.

I look forward to working with the Member on how we can continue the self-sustaining shift to routine rehoming of animals owned by research and teaching institutions where appropriate.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)

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

These are challenging and unprecedented times for Victoria’s tourism industry and the broader community. The restrictions that have been in place to slow the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) and reduce its risk to the health of Victorians have also severely affected the industry, including tour operators like Ms Staindl-Johnson.

The Victorian Government has supported the tourism industry from the economic impacts of COVID-19 through a range of measures, including three tranches of the Business Support Fund and $150 million Experience Economy Survival Package. On 18 November 2020, the Victorian Government also announced a $465 million Victorian Tourism Recovery Package, which includes funding for various initiatives, including a travel voucher scheme to entice more people to visit and stay in regional Victoria, new infrastructure and tourism projects and marketing to promote the state’s appeal.

I am pleased to advise that since you raised this matter in the Legislative Council, the Victorian Government has started a process to ease the restrictions on the tourism industry, as part of its Roadmap for Reopening.

This included the easing of restrictions on intrastate travel from 9 November 2020 and a further easing of specific restrictions for tour and transport operators from 6 December 2020. Under COVID Safe Summer, there are no longer patron limits for tour operators, however patrons and staff must wear face masks when travelling in enclosed vehicles.

Importantly, and acknowledging the efforts of Ms Staindl-Johnson and other tour operators, all Victorian businesses are required to complete a COVIDSafe Plan prior to reopening.

Family violence services funding

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (30 October 2020)

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):

Thank you for taking the time to raise with me the matter of future family violence services funding, specifically in regard to funding for the adolescent family violence program.

The Government has committed to implementing all of the 227 Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV) recommendations and has made significant progress in implementing recommendations to date.

In relation to RCFV recommendation 123, the Government provided a $0.700 million boost in 2016–17 to existing funding, which it has maintained in each subsequent year, to implement and support programs aimed at addressing adolescent family violence.

This investment has delivered services in three DHHS divisions including Barwon, Bayside Peninsula and Central Highlands and supports approximately 304 adolescents and their families, and also supports the design of Aboriginal specific services in Mildura.

I note the evaluation of the adolescent family violence program findings and am pleased that the program delivers an effective specialised response to specific issues affecting young people who use violence in the home and their families.

As part of the coronavirus (COVID-19) response the Government committed $20.4 million in both Commonwealth and State funding to strengthen perpetrator responses, including $5.8 million to expand support services for adolescents using violence in the home to areas not currently serviced, providing access to up to 400 young people and their families in 2020–21.

The issues of security, stability and safety—are central to the Victorian Budget 2020–21, which includes $238 million for wide-ranging family violence prevention and response measures, to continue our support for women and their children.

The Government remains committed to implementing all of the RCFV recommendations.

East Melbourne crime

In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)

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

The use of emergency accommodation in hotels across the central business district and the inner suburbs, including East Melbourne, has played an important role in ensuring the best health outcomes for vulnerable members of our community during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, moving persons with a number of complex needs into hotels within a short amount of time has resulted in a number of challenges. Victoria Police has coordinated its efforts with the Department of Health and Human Services, Launch Housing and the Salvation Army to ensure hotel occupants receive specialised care and access to relevant support services during their stay in the hotels.

In response to the reported criminal and anti-social behaviour in and around the area between Powlett Reserve and Victoria Parade, Victoria Police and the City of Melbourne have provided a coordinated response to deter anti-social or criminal behaviour, including the installation of a security camera and police patrols. This work has resulted in a number of arrests, with persons being charged with trafficking drugs and possession of stolen property.

The government is aware that drug use is having a devastating impact right across the state, with a number of homeless persons and their families having suffered immensely due to drug use. This is why the government has invested an additional $273.1 million in drug services through the 2019–20 Victorian Budget to ensure police have the powers and resources they need to inhibit illicit drug use and trafficking in Victoria. From this funding, $4.7 million was provided to the Forensic Drug Intelligence Capability Program to ensure police have access to drug crime intelligence to assist them to disrupt methamphetamine manufacture, supply and distribution in Victoria. With 3,135 extra police officers rolling out across Victoria, we now have more police than ever before on the streets to disrupt and shut down illicit drug use.

Country Fire Authority Northern Victoria Region stations

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10 November 2020)

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

The Victorian Government is committed to strengthening Victoria’s emergency services by investing in critical assets for the Country Fire Authority (CFA) so they can continue keeping their communities safe.

The government recently announced the CFA Capability Funding package, which will provide a further $126 million over the next five years to support the CFA in delivering critical training, equipment, infrastructure and volunteer support. This includes funding for 16 new stations and the replacement of 50 firefighting appliances for volunteer brigades.

As was recently announced by the Member for Bendigo West, the Golden Square will benefit from this package, with funding for construction of a new CFA station. The CFA is continuing to search for a suitable site for the future location of the new Golden Square station. In the interim, the brigade has received funding from the government’s Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund to undertake critical works at the existing Golden Square station to provide undercover housing for a brigade vehicle. Funding of $136,364 (ex GST) has been approved for these works.

The CFA is aware of the needs of the Currawa, Yarrawonga and Strathbogie Fire Brigades. The CFA is endeavouring to upgrade and replace stations across Victoria in an equitable manner. The CFA Capital Works Program is informed by CFA’s infrastructure priorities, which take into consideration district, regional and state-wide needs, including community risk profile and service delivery needs, to ensure the best outcome for Victorians.

Volunteer emergency service groups can also apply for grants of up to $150,000 to help buy operational equipment and fund minor facility upgrades. Under the annual Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program (VESEP) funding program, the government matches every $1 paid by volunteer groups with a $2 co-contribution up to $150,000.

COVID-19

In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

To enable effective contact tracing, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) requires that certain types of Victorian businesses, workplaces and premises, record the name and phone number of each person who attends the premises for more than 15 minutes. These records must be kept for 28 days.

The types of businesses and entities to whom this requirement applies are listed on the DHHS website, and include places such as hospitality venues, community facilities, recreation facilities, hair and beauty services, auction houses, religious venues, galleries and more. Other businesses and places where people visit are also encouraged but not mandated to keep such records.

The Victorian Government has developed the Victorian Government QR Code Service. An accessible solution to enable businesses and entities to conveniently capture and store the required details for the required period.

Businesses and entities can visit coronavirus.vic.gov.au/qrcode where they may register one or more locations and areas (within those locations). Following registration, an email is sent to the business or entity containing a link to one or more printable Quick Response (QR) code posters, which can be easily printed and displayed.

For example, a restaurant with indoor and outdoor space may register one QR code to put up in their indoor area, and another to put up in their outdoor area. Another example is a business owner with multiple locations, who may register a QR code to put up in each of their locations.

When a visitor comes to the premises, they simply need to scan the QR code with their phone’s camera. Alternatively a user can enter the unique six digit code found on posters, into the Service Victoria app and check-in that way.

If the customer does not have a smartphone, the organisation may do it on their behalf, using a business or personal smartphone. All businesses and venues are still required to have pen and paper record keeping on hand as an ultimate backup, if a visitor prefers to not use the QR code method.

There is no cost to Victorian businesses for using this new QR code service and using it is not mandatory. Businesses may continue to use their existing recordkeeping method, which could be an alternative QR code platform, or the traditional pen and paper method.

The QR code system is backed by a call centre able to assist businesses having issues with the QR system. This supplements detailed information available on the coronavirus hub website as well as an in app virtual assistance available within the mobile app.

In working on this solution, government continues to prioritise the privacy and security of all Victorians’ data. Data entered into the Victorian Government QR Code Service is only collected and used for contact tracing purposes. Personal information will be stored in a secure database for DHHS to access if needed, and deleted after 28 days if not needed.

The Victorian Government is committed to continuing to support businesses through the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Local government elections

In reply to Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)

Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

The local government elections (elections) took place on 24 October 2020 under challenging circumstances, in the face of a global pandemic. In line with the Chief Health Officer’s advice, the elections were independently administered and overseen by the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC). The elections were the largest ever undertaken in Victoria, with 298 separate elections occurring for 76 of Victoria’s 79 councils and over four million voters enrolled. The elections were held for the first time in all councils by safe and secure postal voting.

The VEC took active steps to ensure the safety of candidates, staff and the public during the elections, including employing an experienced public health adviser. The VEC prepared a COVIDSafe Election Plan (Plan), which was publicly released five weeks in advance of the elections. This Plan outlined how the VEC would minimise the impact of COVID-19 on electoral participant safety, operations and integrity.

In line with the Plan, the VEC took steps to ensure the safe delivery of the elections, including the introduction of occupancy limits and physical distancing practices at VEC venues. These necessary precautions, prolonged counting and delayed publication of results, meaning that the election results were finalised a week later than the 2016 local government elections. Anticipating these delays, the VEC extended the date for declaration of results to 13 November 2020. Results for all 76 councils were declared by this date.

The VEC is not subject to Ministerial direction or control in respect of the performance of its responsibilities, functions and exercise of its powers. Under the current legislative framework, the VEC is not required to provide real time voting updates and can determine the timing for such updates.

Community confidence in the outcome of elections is integral to our system, and this is why the VEC has been transparent in advising the public about the processes it would follow in conducting local government elections during the pandemic. The quick dissemination of progressive counts may be possible with our rapidly changing technology. However, to ensure the confidence of the community, accuracy in those results is paramount.

The Andrews Government is always interested in ways to improve transparency and accountability in Victoria’s elections and we will consult with the VEC on how best to achieve this.

Duck hunting

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11 November 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

I am sure the Member can appreciate that the restrictions put in place by the Chief Health Officer, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, impacted many face-to-face activities. This including the Waterfowl Identification Tests undertaken by the Game Management Authority (GMA).

The Government has extended the validity of game licences by one year, in recognition of the unprecedented impact that the Chief Health Officer’s restrictions had on game hunting. This included holders of a Junior Licence. Eligible licence holders will automatically receive the licence extension.

The GMA has advised me that Waterfowl Identification Testing is scheduled to resume in February 2021, subject to Chief Health Officer directives.

Budget 2020–21

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (26 November 2020)

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):

In the 2019–20 Budget, the Government identified the need to respond to changing economic conditions by progressively realigning expenditure to target key priority areas, including by implementing savings and efficiencies to improve the effectiveness of departmental spending, and by rebalancing wages policy parameters.

The Government remains committed to the efficiency and effectiveness of government services. However, in the context of the current economic climate, the Government has revised its approach to ensure efficiency measures can be implemented without impairing the economic recovery by deferring the implementation of a range of efficiency measures.

As part of the 2021–22 budget, the Government will continue to review its path forward to ensure fiscal sustainability.

Answers to constituency questions

Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.

27 November to 10 December 2020

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (3 March 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Latrobe Valley Authority (LVA) was established through our comprehensive Latrobe Valley transition package to support workers, businesses and the community to transition following the closure of the Hazelwood Mine and Power Station.

The Andrews Labor Government is helping to new job opportunities across the Valley, including more than 4,200 jobs from investments in infrastructure and local programs.

This is in addition to the extensive direct support provided to workers in the Latrobe Valley who have needed assistance from industry transition. The Worker Transition Service has directly assisted over 1,482 people and their families to access training and navigate employment opportunities.

Under the Worker Transfer Scheme eligible workers at eligible power operators were offered the opportunity to take early retirement so that former Hazelwood workers could apply for roles. To date, 90 workers have been employed at other generators.

We will not apologise for helping invest in the community to support new jobs, deliver new services and build new infrastructure. The Government made a commitment to stand with the people of the Latrobe Valley and that hasn’t changed.

Our long-term investments are built on the principle of supporting workers, businesses and communities. Diversification requires sustained investment in local skills, training and education. We are continuing to invest in the Valley to increase innovation and bolster regional strengths, creating long-term high-quality local jobs.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (23 April 2020)

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):

The Victorian Government understands the enormous impact COVID-19 is having on Victorian businesses, workers and the rental sector, including those in the Western Metropolitan Region.

On 25 April 2020, the government’s residential tenancies emergency measures started under the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (the Act). The Act introduced a ban on evictions, which are now only possible in limited circumstances, and a ban on rent increases. These measures have been extended to 28 March 2021.

To help support this scheme, Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) offers a service to help tenants and landlords negotiate rent reductions and, where necessary, make binding orders to resolve disputes.

The government is also providing financial relief to tenants and landlords. Tenants experiencing hardship who have negotiated a rent reduction with their landlord may be eligible for a grant of up to $3,000. In addition to this, landlords who give their tenants rent reductions may be eligible for a discount of up to 50% on the property’s 2020 land tax.

You may wish to refer your constituents to the CAV website at www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/renting-laws-and-support-during-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic for further information on the support available.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (4 August 2020)

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support):

The government recognises that prisoner engagement in caring for and training dogs can have a rehabilitative effect.

In recognition of those benefits, Corrections Victoria currently partners with Greyhound Racing Victoria through the Prison Pet Partnership, which involves ex-racing dogs being trained by selected prisoners so that they are suitable for adoption. The program currently operates at Dhurringile and Tarrengower prisons. The prisoners participating in this program are learning valuable skills, which helps in their rehabilitation and reduces the risk of reoffending after they complete their sentence. The program not only supports prisoners but also helps give back to the local community.

Beechworth Correctional Centre also partners with a local animal rescue program which helps rehabilitate prisoners while re-homing abandoned dogs.

The government is currently considering further opportunities to enhance programs focused on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism through the use of canines. Corrections Victoria has met with the Defence Community Dogs and identified a preferred program site. However, the restrictions related to the COVID-19 emergency have impacted the ability to progress site visits. This work will continue when it is safe to do so.

Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16 September 2020)

Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

I appreciate pedestrian safety is a concern to the local community of East Ivanhoe Village. There are many requests for pedestrian crossings across Victoria each year and these are considered based on various factors including traffic volumes, pedestrian activity levels, nearby land uses, the historical safety record of the site, and impact on public transport. The Department of Transport, in response to safety concerns heard from the community about poor motorist behaviour in this area, has shared feedback with Victoria Police for enforcement consideration.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (14 October 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government has a strong track record of providing mental health support to those who need it, including new parents, across Victoria.

In May 2019, the Labor Government delivered on its commitment to provide more support for new Victorian mums and dads with a $213.7 million investment in a range of new parenting supports, including $135.1 million to expand specialist Early Parenting Centres from the current three to a total of ten. The new centres will be located in the local government areas of:

• Bendigo

• Geelong

• Ballarat

• Whittlesea

• Wyndham

• Casey and;

• Frankston.

The new Early Parenting Centres will more than triple the capacity of these much needed services and will be available to all Victorians families with children aged 0–4 who require specialist early parenting supports, including families from Shepparton, Mildura and other rural and regional communities.

There are six Mother Baby Units across Victoria. The department has funded Goulburn Valley Health and Mildura Base Public Hospital mental health services to deliver the Perinatal Mental Health Program to support women with moderate mental health illnesses, and their families during the perinatal period.

There are a number of other initiatives funded as part of the $213.7 million investment which will support all new parents across Victoria including $7.2 million to expand the 24-hour Maternal and Child Health phone line with specialists in sleep and settling issues and $26.9 million for first time parent groups.

And most importantly, this funding is on top of the landmark Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, which is already having its interim recommendations delivered on. The final report is due to be handed down in February 2021, and the Labor Government has already committed to implementing all of the final recommendations.

All of these Andrews Labor Government initiatives for Victoria’s mental health system are helping those who need it most.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16 October 2020)

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

The Victorian Government supports Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers and is providing $126 million over five years in capability funding for new training, facilities and equipment. This includes funding for the replacement of 50 firefighting appliances.

I am aware that not all CFA appliances have been converted to ‘storz’ hoses and couplings, however, these are being incrementally replaced with the rollout of new appliances. In the interim, adaptors have been provided to convert these hoses to work with storz fittings to allow a mix of hose types to be used effectively.

CFA brigades, including the Plenty Fire Brigade and District 12 near Seymour, have successfully utilised government grants programs, such as the Victorian Emergency Serves Equipment Program, to fund the upgrade or conversion of their appliances to suit ‘storz’ hoses.

I can confirm that the number of bushfire tankers across Victoria has not changed as a result of the reforms. The CFA and Fire Rescue Victoria will continue to use their combined resources to provide the best service to Victoria, and the community should be in absolutely no doubt that they are well protected this coming fire season.

Northern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (16 October 2020)

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

The operational need for new and upgraded police stations is determined by Victoria Police. Where the need for additional police infrastructure funding is identified, the status of projects is determined by the Victorian Government through the usual Budget process. As you would expect, the government works closely with the Chief Commissioner to ensure Victoria Police is appropriately resourced to tackle law and order issues facing the Victorian community.

Over the past five years, Victoria Police has invested in a number of renovations to ensure the Greensborough Police Station remains safe and functional both for staff and members of the community. These include carpark upgrade; external works such as painting, fencing and concreting; restumping and roof repairs; enhanced CCTV; upgrading of air-conditioning units; installation of LED lighting, counter screens and window blinds; and interior painting.

The government will continue to ensure that Victoria Police has the resources it needs to keep our growing community safe. The government’s record $3 billion police investment is delivering 3,135 new sworn police officers, as well as state-of the-art intelligence systems, new technology, new and upgraded police stations, and stronger laws.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (27 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. From 11.59pm 22 November, Victoria progressed to the Last Step on the roadmap to reopening. Indoor exercise facilities, including gyms, across Victoria are able to open subject to patron limits and density quotient.

The Victorian Government is working to ensure businesses can take gradual steps to open safely and effectively. Victoria’s Industry Restart Guidelines: Physical and Recreation Indoor and Outdoor are assisting businesses in preparing to safely operate in accordance with the easing of restrictions. Exercise and classes can resume in gyms with up to 20 people per group and a limit of 150 people per facility, subject to a density quotient.

Requirements for gyms include having a COVIDSafe plan, a COVID Marshal, wearing a mask when you are not performing strenuous exercise and cleaning equipment between use. Preventing the spread of Coronavirus is a business’s OH&S responsibility, and these restrictions are in place to help with this.

The timing and scope of restrictions under the roadmap to reopening differ from previous restrictions applied in Victoria. Current restrictions are based on the most up to date public health advice and are in place to keep the number of cases low. Exercising indoors presents an additional risk of spreading the virus. That’s why it’s important to have these restrictions in place.

Recognising the impact on the economy of restrictions on businesses, the Government is taking additional steps—through a further $3 billion in cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support—to assist Victorian businesses and help keep Victorians in jobs.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) has taken strong regulatory actions in its regulatory oversight of the Australian Recycling Corporation landfill at Bulla and has been actively regulating this site through regular compliance inspections. Multiple regulatory notices have been issued to drive compliance at this premises.

EPA has prohibited the operator from accepting waste at the site since June 2018 and continues to regulate the site’s licence conditions, which include a requirement to cover all waste at the site to manage the risk of dust, odour and hotspots.

Remediation works continue at the site including construction of a landfill cell to dispose of the stockpiled waste. These works are expected to be completed in-2021.

EPA was notified of a small fire at this site on 28 October 2020. Fire Rescue Victoria and EPA attended, and the operator brought a small area of smoking waste under control using onsite equipment in accordance with the site’s hotspot management plan. The operator was required to undertake asbestos monitoring during the management of the incident which returned results below the limit of detection.

EPA is investigating the circumstances of a fire that occurred at the site on 22 September 2020 to establish if there has been any breach of legislation or the operator’s licence conditions and will enforce environment protection legislation to the full extent under the law.

Southern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (28 October 2020)

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

I have been advised:

As of 30 November 2020, up to 25 per cent of private sector workers have been able to return to their offices, with a move to a 50 per cent return for office workers by 11 January subject to public health advice. Subject to the same advice, up to 25 per cent of workers in the Victorian public service will be able to return to the office from 11 January, moving up to 50 per cent on 8 February.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (28 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

I know that the restrictions on the number of people gathering as a group have been very difficult for Victorians, and for many in our faith communities not being able to meet with friends and family in local churches or places of worship has been particularly challenging.

Since the Second Step of Victoria’s Roadmap for Reopening, restrictions have gradually eased to allow churches and faith-based organisations to recommence services in a COVIDSafe way.

Further easing of restrictions in metropolitan Melbourne occurred from 11.59pm 22 November 2020. This means indoor religious gatherings and ceremonies can occur with up to 150 people attending, subject to a density quotient. Outdoor religious ceremonies can occur with up to 300 people attending, also subject to a density quotient.

The Government will continue to engage and consult with faith leaders and communities across regional Victoria and will look to increase the number of people that can gather indoors for faith-based activities as soon as it is safe to do so.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (29 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Victorian Government recognises the importance of local events in regional communities. Motorsports are a key tourism attraction across regional Victoria, including in Mildura. Victoria’s roadmap to reopening is based on the advice of our public health experts and aims to ease restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.

From 11.59 pm on 22 November 2020, Victoria moved to the Last Step in our roadmap to reopening. Under this step, outdoor spaces are able to hold up to 50 per cent seated capacity of up to a maximum of 500 people and subject to density quotients. Further easing of restrictions in regional Victoria will be informed by the advice of the Chief Health Officer, with the continued aim of protecting the health and safety of all Victorians.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (29 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Businesses in Victoria have faced unprecedented challenges due to coronavirus. The pandemic has created significant disruption and economic hardship for businesses of all sizes across most industries, and I know that it has been a particularly challenging period for the hospitality sector.

Industry restrictions are guided by the public health advice provided by the Chief Health Officer. Hospitality industry restrictions include requirements to follow density quotients and patron caps that support COVIDSafe indoor and outdoor dining. Patron caps were increased in the easing of restrictions that came into effect at 11.59pm on 22 November 2020.

The Victorian Government continues to work closely with the hospitality industry to provide support to Victorian businesses and make restrictions as workable as possible.

The Government has committed over $6 billion to support the survival and adaptation of Victorian businesses since March 2020. This includes a range of supports for hospitality businesses, including the $251 million Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund, providing grants of up to $30,000, and $58 million in grants through the Outdoor Dining and Entertainment Package.

Subject to public health advice, industry restrictions will continue to ease over the coming period as we move towards a COVIDSafe Summer. As restrictions ease, it is more important than ever that we take steps every day to keep ourselves and others safe.

Businesses can find information about business support programs and how to keep their staff and customers safe at www.business.vic.gov.au.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (29 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing public health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

As of 11:59pm 22 November 2020, all of Victoria moved to the Last Step of reopening. Under the current restrictions in effect across the State, travel between regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne is allowed, there are no limits on how far you can travel or the reasons you can travel, and you do not need a permit to travel, unless you are coming from South Australia.

With this easing of restrictions, changes have been made relating to the ability of community groups to meet. Under the state-wide restrictions, 50 people can meet outdoors in a public place, and community venues, including libraries and neighbourhood houses, are open for up to 150 people indoors with a maximum of 20 people per group. More broadly, further changes have been made to restriction categories including but not limited to social gatherings and leaving home; exercise and recreation; community facilities; entertainment and leisure; and, ceremonies and religious gatherings.

These restrictions and their easing have been based on public health advice and evidence that large numbers of people indoors, especially if people are known to each other, is one of the highest risk activities for increasing transmission of coronavirus. A detailed summary of the restrictions in place under the state-wide Last Step is available at: https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-covid-19-restrictions-roadmaps.

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (29 October 2020)

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The Victorian Government values the important role of indoor entertainment venues such as cinemas play in the life of the community and recognises the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on these venues.

Industry restart guidelines for indoor entertainment venues including cinemas, performing arts and music venues have been prepared in consultation with industry sector organisations and businesses to provide a safe pathway to COVID Normal operations.

Under the latest easing, commencing on 23 November, indoor entertainment venues, including cinemas, are able to open with 150 people per space (subject to density limits).

The Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that small businesses impacted by restrictions continue to have access to the support they need to prepare for COVID Normal operations and recovery. This support is being provided to small businesses in the form of cash grants, tax relief, skills programs, and mentoring and wellbeing assistance.

More information on all the Victorian Government business support measures can be found on the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (29 October 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. From 11.59pm 22 November, Victoria progressed to the Last Step on the roadmap to reopening. Indoor exercise facilities, including gyms, across Victoria are able to open subject to patron limits and a density quotient.

The Victorian Government is working to ensure businesses can take gradual steps to open safely and effectively. Victoria’s Industry Restart Guidelines: Physical and Recreation Indoor and Outdoor are assisting businesses in preparing to safely operate in accordance with the easing of restrictions. Exercise and classes can resume in gyms with up to 20 people per group and a limit of 150 people per facility, subject to a density quotient.

Requirements for gyms include having a COVIDSafe plan, a COVID Marshal, wearing a mask when you are not performing strenuous exercise and cleaning equipment between use. Preventing the spread of Coronavirus is a business’s OH&S responsibility, and these restrictions are in place to help with this.

Current restrictions are based on the most up to date public health advice and are in place to keep the number of cases low. Exercising indoors presents an additional risk of spreading the virus. That’s why it’s important to have these restrictions in place.

Recognising the impact on the economy of restrictions on businesses, the Government is taking additional steps—through a further $3 billion in cash grants, tax relief and cashflow support—to assist Victorian businesses and help keep Victorians in jobs.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (30 October 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Victorian Government welcomes the release of the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) Reducing Bushfire Risks performance audit. The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) appreciates the careful consideration involved in this report. The government accepts all recommendations.

The VAGO report has identified significant strengths in DELWP’s approach to the planning, monitoring and delivery of public land fuel management. The recommendations of the audit reflect a confidence that DELWP has the capacity, and capability to make positive differences in areas identified as requiring improvement. One of these areas is how we measure the effectiveness of fuel management.

DELWP recognises that it needs to partner with other agencies to develop a structured and systematic process that is driven by empirical evidence. DELWP has committed to doing this by December 2021.

To date, DELWP has undertaken preliminary assessments of how fuel treatments influenced the spread of bushfires during the 2019–20 bushfire season by developing case studies of specific events. In the Hume Region, this has been undertaken in areas impacted by bushfire, as well as other bushfire affected areas throughout Victoria.

DELWP also collects monitoring data annually on fuel management treatments such as overall fuel hazard monitoring before and after planned burns. In Hume, 178 sites across 18 burns were assessed in 2019–20 as part of this program. These assessments found that overall fuel hazard was reduced on all burns. Detailed mapping analysis is also conducted annually on all planned burns and bushfire affected areas to collect fire severity and fire history that informs our calculations of bushfire risk across the region. These data will also be incorporated into our future assessments of effectiveness of different fuel management treatments.

DELWP’s approach to monitoring, evaluation and reporting is outlined in the Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework for Bushfire Management on Public land which is available on www.ffm.vic.gov.au.

South Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (30 October 2020)

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):

The Victorian Government recently announced a roadmap to reopening Victoria via safe, steady and sustainable steps.

From 11.59 pm on Sunday 18 October 2020, individuals were able to go boating and fishing (powered and unpowered) within a limit of 25 km from their residences with no time limit applying. Now, thanks to the hard work of all Victorians, the 25 km limit has been removed, and Victorians can now travel freely between metropolitan and regional Victoria.

Staying safe is more important than ever. It is vital for people to keep wearing a face mask, and maintain physical distance. People who feel sick should get tested and stay home.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (10 November 2020)

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

The operational need for new and upgraded police stations is determined by Victoria Police. Where the need for additional police infrastructure funding is identified, the status of projects is determined by the Victorian Government through the usual Budget process. As you would expect, the government works closely with the Chief Commissioner to ensure Victoria Police is appropriately resourced to tackle law and order issues facing the Victorian community.

Over the past three years, Victoria Police has invested in a number of renovations to ensure the Whittlesea Police Station remains safe and functional both for staff and members of the community. These include refurbishments of the interview room for offenders; complete refurbishment of toilets and bathrooms; painting, installation of new doors and a kitchen; enhanced security infrastructure including access control electronic gate, fencing, security grilles on doors and windows and CCTV; and upgrading of air conditioning units and electrical systems.

The government will continue to ensure that Victoria Police has the resources it needs to keep our growing community safe. The government’s record $3 billion police investment is delivering 3,135 new sworn police officers, as well as state-of the-art intelligence systems, new technology, new and upgraded police stations, and stronger laws.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Andrews Labor Government is working to increase tree cover in Melbourne through policies both within Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 and Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2050.

As part of implementing Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 and Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2050, the government is developing strategies to encourage the creation of an urban forest, including greening on state owned public land such as schools, parkland, road, rail and utility corridors.

We have also released the Trees for Cooler and Greener Streetscapes—Guidelines for Streetscape Planning and Design, which provides technical advice and design solutions to prioritise and maintain healthy trees across all types of urban streets and road corridors. Further information can be found here: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/plan-melbourne/cooling-greening-melbourne.

Other relevant projects include the preparation of a Metropolitan Open Space Strategy which will provide a strategic framework for the development of Melbourne’s open space network for the next 30 years, the development of guidance materials to support developers in responding to urban heat at the lot scale, and the release of Living Melbourne: our metropolitan urban forest strategy, by Resilient Melbourne and The Nature Conservancy in 2019. This latter strategy was endorsed by some 41 separate entities, including DELWP and the local governments you have mentioned. Further information can be found here: https://resilientmelbourne.com.au/living-melbourne/

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10 November 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Masks have played an important part in reducing Victoria’s case numbers.

The current restrictions, including the current mask policy, are based on expert medical advice and have been introduced to reduce the number of coronavirus cases in Victoria. Decisions about current and future mask policy will continue to be based on expert public health advice as Victoria moves towards a COVIDSafe Summer.

Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (10 November 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

Victorian students will be supported to achieve their best regardless of their circumstances and background, as the Andrews Labor Government invests an additional $6 billion in new school programs and infrastructure initiatives through the Victorian Budget 2020–21.

The Victorian Budget 2020–21 invests more than $3 billion in school upgrades, including $1.1 billion as part of the previously announced Building Works Package, with a further $1.9 billion to roll out the next phase of the school building boom. This includes the following schools in the Eastern Metropolitan region:

Banyule Primary School—$12.386 million

Bayswater Secondary College—$12.433 million

Blackburn High School—$9.000 million

Boronia West Primary School—$4.334 million

Box Hill North Primary School—At least $3.418 million

Bulleen Heights School—$9.150 million

Burwood East Primary School—$8.031 million

Chatham Primary School—$5.390 million

Diamond Valley Special Developmental School—$10.000 million

Fairhills High School—$8.071 million

Glenallen School—$7.988 million

Greenhills Primary School—$6.828 million

Heatherwood School—$10.000 million

Heathmont College—$2.500 million

Mount Waverley Secondary College—$7.157 million

Norwood Secondary College—$7.380 million

Ringwood Secondary College—$14.735 million

Ruskin Park Primary School—At least $9.556 million

Syndal South Primary School—$4.426 million

Templestowe Heights Primary School—At least $11.729 million

Vermont Secondary College—$5.850 million

Vermont South Special School—$10.108 million

Croydon Community School—$18.123 million

Macleod College—$4.436 million

Montmorency Secondary College—$16.990 million

St Helena Secondary College—$12.124 million

Blackburn High School—$1.000 million

Box Hill North Primary School—$0.422 million

Mount Waverley Secondary College—$0.795 million

Norwood Secondary College—$0.820 million

Ruskin Park Primary School—$1.180 million

Templestowe Heights Primary School—$1.448 million

Vermont Secondary College—$0.650 million

Further, funding as part of new school programs announced in the Victorian Budget 2020–21 will benefit schools in Eastern Metropolitan Region:

• $250 million to deploy more than 4,100 tutors across Victorian schools to ensure students who have fallen behind or become disengaged in the wake of the pandemic get the support they need in 2021

• $1.6 billion for Disability Inclusion to transform support for students with disability in Victorian government schools, doubling the number of students receiving extra support in the classroom to 55,000 and expected to create up to 1,730 jobs across the State

• $81.6 million to increase the availability of before and after school care. Grants of up to $75,000 will be available to start these new programs, which will be offered to both government and non-government students

• $24.5 million so students can keep the more than 71,000 mobile devices loaned to them during the coronavirus pandemic

• $31.6 million will be invested to support more families through the Camps, Sports and Excursions Fund and State Schools Relief’s Affordable School Uniforms program

• $37.5 million is provided to continue to help schools adopt a whole-school-approach to Respectful Relationships and embed a sustained, universal approach to the prevention of family violence

• $38 million to develop a new single VCE integrated senior secondary certificate, meaning students no longer have to choose between doing VCE or VCAL, and

• $15.4 million for innovative Initial Teacher Education programs that accelerate the training and employment of high-quality teachers into schools and early childhood services.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (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 Eastern Victoria Region for his question.

The Commonwealth Government has requested that the Victorian Government undertake a business case for this project.

When the business case is completed, it will be submitted to the Commonwealth for their consideration.

The Victorian Government will continue to follow the Commonwealth Government’s preferred approach on this matter.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (11 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The wet and warm weather conditions over winter and spring have created ideal growing conditions for Paterson’s Curse across the region. With little native ground cover for competition, following the dry summer and due to the open nature of the River Red Gum forests, Paterson’s Curse has been more noticeable than usual.

Land managers have been working to control Paterson’s Curse via mechanical slashing in higher visitation areas, and chemically treating isolated infestations to reduce spread within Gunbower National Park and the Gunbower State Forest.

This work must be timed for before the plants set seed, and is prioritised at high visitation and camping sites. Given the large germination this year, some areas have gone to seed before these works could occur. Current strategies in Gunbower aim to treat new infestations as a priority and, over time, reduce the larger clusters of the plant that have germinated extensively in 2020.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (11 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

I thank the Member for Western Metropolitan Region for her question regarding the Werribee Open Range Zoo redevelopment.

I was very proud to stand with the Premier and Member for Werribee, Tim Pallas MP, earlier this month to announce that the Andrews Labor Government is investing $84 million to transform Werribee Zoo into Australia’s leading open range zoo in this State Budget.

The new twenty-two hectares elephant sanctuary will be a drawcard for tourists, it will create jobs in Melbourne’s west and boost the local economy.

Construction will commence from 2021 and continue through to 2024. Each of the various stages of the development will be opened over a three year period from 2022 to 2024, and will include the elephant sanctuary, an expanded rhino retreat, gondola, a prairie landscape for a herd of bison, an expanded lion exhibit and a new hyena clan.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (11 November 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Government respects that there is a range of views in the community about duck hunting and that some people are not supportive of this activity.

As outlined in the Animal Welfare Action Plan, the Government values and continues to support key animal industries and activities like agriculture; sport; recreation, including hunting and fishing; research and teaching; invasive species management; and exhibition. Consultation has commenced on a Directions Paper detailing a framework for new animal welfare legislation—a key action under the Plan. The Directions Paper seeks feedback on how welfare standards would continue to apply to these industries and activities.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (11 November 2020)

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations):

The matter you raise about fleet maintenance costs, should be re-directed to the Minister for Ports and Freight as the responsible line Minister.

The matter you raise about funding for the Princess Highway Corridor Strategy should be re-directed to the Minister for Roads as the responsible line Minister.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (11 November 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

Restrictions are based on expert medical advice and were put in place to reduce the number of coronavirus cases in Victoria.

From 11.59 pm on 22 November 2020, masks can be removed for facials, beard trimmings and other beauty and personal services where it is not practical for a client to be wearing a mask. The technician or service provider is required to keep their mask on throughout the duration of the treatment or service.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11 November 2020)

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

Over recent years there have been significant changes across the southern connected Basin, including reduced Barmah Choke capacity and reduced flows from Menindee Lakes and the Darling River, changing demands for irrigation water and increased movement of environmental water.

These factors are leading to increased flows in the Goulburn and Murray Rivers which have caused environmental damage and increased risk of delivery shortfall for entitlement holders including irrigators.

I have been raising these deliverability issues matters with the Murray Darling Basin Authority directly and through the Basin Ministerial Council over recent years—and taking actions in Victoria to mitigate the impact.

I have already taken steps to limit new extractions in the Victorian Lower Murray to protect the environment and existing users and am urging my counterparts in South Australia and New South Wales to do the same—this is a shared system.

I am also taking strong action to protect the lower Goulburn River from high flows over summer and announced a review of trade and operating arrangements to mitigate and avoid ongoing damage. This includes aiming for a maximum of 40 gigalitres of trade flows over Summer months. It is critical that we have trade and operating arrangements throughout the connected Murray-Darling Basin that recognise ecological tolerances of our rivers and provide for the sustainable delivery of water into the future. We will be consulting with irrigators over coming months to look at what trade rules should be in place to further protect the environment and limit delivery risk to irrigators.

The Murray is put under more stress when there are no flows from the northern Basin into the Darling River—which puts added stress on the Murray and Goulburn. That is why we need changes to rules and practices in the Northern Basin, such as better licensing and compliance of floodplain harvesting, and protection of low flows and environmental water.

At the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in June 2020 I secured agreement that NSW and Queensland would engage Victoria in their reviews and reports on floodplain harvesting and first flush events. This will be an important step towards greater compliance, accountability and transparency across the Basin.

I have also asked for more work to be done through the Basin Ministerial Council on the impact of climate change on the Lower Lakes in South Australia. Recent studies show climate change will make it more difficult to keep the Lower Lakes a freshwater system. There is a need to develop adaptation options, not just for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth, but as part of the whole Murray-Darling Basin system. I have also, with my NSW counterpart, secured climate change modelling for Constraints projects.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12 November 2020)

Ms SPENCE (Yuroke—Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Youth):

I thank the Member for Northern Victoria for her question regarding the Victorian Government’s new Living Learning program.

The Living Learning program will provide three years of education and wraparound mental health support to 144 Victorian young people aged 15 to 21 and with complex needs. The program is targeted at supporting those young people who are disengaged from employment, education and training and who have a mental health condition.

The program is supported by the Victorian Government as part of our Partnerships Addressing Disadvantage (PADs) initiative. PADs bring together the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors to address deep-seated disadvantage through a social impact investment model.

In 2018, Melbourne City Mission was successful in a proposal to deliver the Living Learning program at its subsidiary school, the Hester Hornbrook Academy. Currently, enrolment in Living Learning at Hester Hornbrook Academy is available to students who live within one hour’s travel time of its three metropolitan campuses in the Melbourne, Stonnington and Brimbank local government areas. This is to limit commuting strain on students and families and to minimise the risk of students disengaging from education due to barriers caused by distance.

Part of the PAD model is an extensive evaluation which will capture key insights and allow the Living Learning program to be expanded or replicated based upon its success.

As Minister for Youth I am acutely aware that young people living in rural and regional Victoria face additional challenges to achieving the social, economic, health and wellbeing outcomes that are equivalent to their peers living in metropolitan areas.

That is why the 2020–21 Victorian Budget commits $1.2 million to extend the Regional Presence Project for a further year. This project supports the operation of regional offices by the Youth Affairs Council Victoria (YACVic) and Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY) in Swan Hill, Warrnambool, Ballarat and Morwell. Staff in these regional offices deliver direct support to young people and build the capacity of local services to meet the needs of young people.

This month I attended YACVic’s Rural Youth Awards and had the pleasure of presenting the Young Person Leading Change Award to Janelle Graham, an incredible young person from Shepparton. Janelle is a Lived Experience Consultant with Berry Street’s Y-Change initiative and has done some outstanding work in Northern Victoria.

The Victorian Government is reaching out and listening to young people in regional and rural Victoria through the development of a new youth strategy. Last month, I launched a public consultation to inform a new state-wide youth strategy to make our state the best place to be for young people. As part of the consultation, we are delivering 11 online place-based and youth-led forums based in regional and rural Victoria. This includes youth-only forums in Wangaratta, Mildura, Bendigo, Warrnambool and Morwell, and community forums in Bright, Swan Hill, Shepparton, Orbost, Horsham and Ballarat.

We are developing a strategy that is for young people, by young people—and we will work at each stage of the process to make sure all young Victorians are represented.

I invite the Member for Northern Victoria to support young people in her region and encourage them to have their say through this process. For information on how young people in your region can contribute to the development of the youth strategy, please visit engage.vic.gov.au/victorian-youth-strategy.

Eastern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Andrews Labor Government is working to increase tree cover in Melbourne through policies both within Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 and Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2050.

As part of implementing Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 and Victoria’s Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2017–2050, the government is developing strategies to encourage the creation of an urban forest, including greening on state owned public land such as schools, parkland, road, rail and utility corridors.

We have also released the Trees for Cooler and Greener Streetscapes—Guidelines for Streetscape Planning and Design, which provides technical advice and design solutions to prioritise and maintain healthy trees across all types of urban streets and road corridors. Further information can be found here: https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/policy-and-strategy/planning-for-melbourne/plan-melbourne/cooling-greening-melbourne.

Other relevant projects include the preparation of a Metropolitan Open Space Strategy which will provide a strategic framework for the development of Melbourne’s open space network for the next 30 years, the development of guidance materials to support developers in responding to urban heat at the lot scale, and the release of Living Melbourne: our metropolitan urban forest strategy, by Resilient Melbourne and The Nature Conservancy in 2019. This latter strategy was endorsed by some 41 separate entities, including DELWP and local councils. Further information can be found here: https://resilientmelbourne.com.au/living-melbourne/

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12 November 2020)

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier):

The Chief Health Officer is responsible for providing public health advice to the Government to promote and protect public health and wellbeing under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

At 11.59pm Sunday 22 November 2020, Victoria moved to the Last Step of the roadmap towards reopening. Under this step, private gatherings have increased to allow up to 15 people to visit a home per day, and these people can be from any number of households. Capacity limits to hospitality, recreational facilities and cultural venues have also increased and there will also be a phased return to office-based workplaces from Monday 30 November 2020.

These measures are in place to promote and protect public health and wellbeing, and continue to be informed by advice from health experts and the latest epidemiological data. We don’t want to undo all of the hard work and sacrifices that Victorians have made and that is why we will continue to make decisions based on the best advice and data available to us.

The roadmap to reopening continues to guide Victoria’s pathway to a COVIDSafe Summer. As announced on 22 November 2020, the allowance for private gatherings will increase to 30 people in total per day in time for festive season celebrations. Further opportunities to ease restrictions in a safe and steady way will continue to be considered to ensure that once we are open, we stay open.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12 November 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government is committed to ensuring that all Victorian students have the opportunity to be happy, healthy and resilient. School sport and other school community and social events are crucial in supporting students to be physically, socially and emotionally healthy.

That is why we have invested $24.2 million in the creation of Active Schools and $21 million in the Get Active Kids Voucher program, as part of a joint strategy between education, health and community sport to get kids moving move.

Active Schools will support Victorian schools to offer more opportunities for their students to be active and social with their peers, as well as encouraging schools to implement a whole school approach to physical activity and recreation based on the Active Schools Framework. Quality school sport is one of six priority areas of the Active Schools Framework, which supports schools to take a whole school approach to physical activity. As part of Active Schools, the Department of Education and Training will also be working closely with the start-up community to explore how technology can get teens moving.

The government currently supports delivery of an extensive school sport program through School Sport Victoria (SSV). This includes an interschool sport program providing a wide range of individual and team sports, in partnership with State Sporting Organisations. Students are offered the opportunity to participate in sports such as swimming, track and field, basketball, bowls and surfing. SSV also support talented students to represent Victoria across various sports offered at School Sport Australia Championships.

The $21 million Get Active Kids Voucher program, managed by Sport and Recreation Victoria, will also deliver $200 vouchers to more than 100,000 eligible Victorian children, assisting lower income families with the costs of participation in sport and active recreation activities.

While Esports are currently not offered as part of these programs, I understand school students have wide-ranging opportunities to participate in Esports in the community. In 2019, the Victorian Government, in partnership with the gaming sector, provided funding through the Major Events Fund to inaugural Melbourne Esports Open. This event will again proceed in 2021 with the support of Visit Victoria and provide entertainment and participation opportunities for gamers across Victoria and Australia.

Southern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (12 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

Victoria’s Marine and Coastal Act 2018 and the accompanying Marine and Coastal Policy, March 2020 set out objectives and guiding principles for planning and management of the state’s marine and coastal environment. Details are available at https://www.marineandcoasts.vic.gov.au/coastal-management/marine-and-coastal-policy.

In addition, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), in partnership with the CSIRO is completing a coastal hazard assessment for Port Phillip Bay. The information and data generated will be used to plan for and manage coastal structures. Further information can be found at: https://www.marineandcoasts.vic.gov.au/coastal-programs/port-phillip-bay-coastal-hazard-assessment.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (24 November 2020)

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

I acknowledge the severe damage caused by the localised storm cell event in May 2019, and greatly value the work of the Wonthaggi Lifesaving Club (LSC) and its selfless contributions to the safety and wellbeing of the community. I also appreciate the continued efforts of the club to provide a safe beach environment.

Following the storm event, Life Saving Victoria and the Emergency Services Infrastructure Authority mobilised quickly to support the Wonthaggi LSC, and following structural assessments, the government allocated $175,000 (ex. GST) to install temporary facilities for the Club in preparation for the 2019–20 summer season.

Recently, I was very pleased to approve Wonthaggi LSC’s application for $289,000 (incl. GST) in additional funding to undertake critical repairs and upgrades to the patrol tower and to upgrade the temporary facilities.

This is one of 125 projects sharing in $20 million in funding under the Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund, as part of the government’s $2.7 billion Building Works package.

The temporary facilities will remain in place until funding has been allocated for the demolition and rebuild of the Wonthaggi LSC facility.

Government investment decisions are guided by Life Saving Victoria’s advice on operational priorities. A funding proposal for the rebuild of the facility needs to be developed with Life Saving Victoria and considered through the Victorian Government Budget process. I encourage the club to continue to work with Life Saving Victoria for guidance on the process.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (24 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

Parks Victoria undertook an extensive program of community and stakeholder engagement in developing the Greater Gariwerd Landscape Draft Management Plan that has now been released for public comment until 24 January 2021.

Communities and tourism operators were actively encouraged to participate in the engagement program. In preparing the draft management plan, Parks Victoria hosted four meetings of a Stakeholder Reference Group with a wide cross section of organisations representing recreation, conservation, local government, tourism and local business. This also included rock climbing representatives nominated by rock climbing groups.

Rock climbers were also well represented at community information sessions that Parks Victoria held across the Grampians region and in Melbourne in 2019. A summary report detailing community feedback was made available in March 2020 on the Engage Victoria website.

Parks Victoria has also hosted five meetings of the Rock Climbing Roundtable, with organisations and individuals representing rock climbing interests.

Parks Victoria has continued to work directly with Licensed Tour Operators to ensure rock climbing can continue at priority sites in Summerday Valley, in a way that minimises the risk of harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage and complying with requirements under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

The draft plan continues to provide for diverse and comprehensive rock climbing opportunities with thousands of climbing routes proposed to remain in Grampians (Gariwerd) National Park, including exclusive access for tour operators to some rock climbing areas. While some culturally and environmentally sensitive areas will no longer be available, the designated climbing areas will provide long-term certainty for visitors and businesses, ensuring that climbing remains a secure part of the visitor economy into the future.

Parks Victoria welcomes submissions from rock climbers and tourism operators on the draft management plan. All community feedback will be carefully considered in preparing the final management plan.

Northern Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)

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

Victoria Police has contacted you directly to discuss these matters and has tasked patrols to the South Morang Football ovals, The Lakes Reserve, Gordons Road and the entry to Hawkstowe reserve, and Gorge Road to deter antisocial behaviour and illegal rubbish dumping. Victoria Police is also liaising with the local council to deploy a static camera in the area of the Plenty Gorge to assist in identifying offenders who dump rubbish illegally.

If your constituents witness any irresponsible or dangerous behaviour causing an immediate safety concern, it is important that they report the matter to Victoria Police by telephone on the emergency number ‘000’. Calls made to ‘000’ are responded to by the nearest available police personnel.

Non-urgent matters such as theft, lost and located property reports, property damage, noise complaints, neighbourhood disputes and general inquiries can be reported to the Police Assistance Line by telephone on 131 444 or via the online reporting portal at: www.police.vic.gov.au/palolr.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

Term 4 is a critical period, particularly for the children moving from kindergarten into Prep, from Grade 6 into Year 7, and those in Year 12 moving into employment or further education and training.

Students in other year levels will also prepare for a change of teachers and new classmates.

A key focus of Term 4 will be to make every effort to ensure each of these end-of-year and beginning-of-year transitions occurs as successfully as possible.

I am pleased to advise that Kinder-to-school transition activities are now permitted in schools, including parents, educators and children meeting a Prep teacher in a school environment. Group sizes should not exceed gathering limits (20 people indoors and 50 outdoors). Our kinder and prep teachers are well prepared and I know they will do a fabulous job in preparing and welcoming these students for their very exciting transition.

This includes finding contextually appropriate and COVID safe ways to conduct orientations and end-of-year celebrations and ensuring transition information captures additional details as necessary.

Based on the advice of the Victorian Chief Health Officer, schools will develop a range of strategies to support each Prep child and family as they commence school in 2021.

Eastern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (24 November 2020)

Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is taking every opportunity to educate members of the public on the dangers of illegal or unattended campfires. This is via forest patrols, media interviews and maintaining a strong social media presence. Community members are provided a ‘Can I or Can’t I’ pamphlet as a reminder of expectations when visiting State Forests and National Parks. These can be located via https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0030/91866/CanICantIcampfireandbbqbrouchure.pdf

In addition, Forest Fire Management Victoria and the Office of the Conservation Regulator undertake regular patrols as part of compliance and enforcement activity. This includes looking for unattended and/or illegal campfires.

Northern Victoria Region

In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (24 November 2020)

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support):

I thanks Ms Maxwell for her continued interest in community safety and advocacy for victims of crime, and I share with her condemnation of all forms of child and sexual abuse.

I do not know the particulars of the individual Ms Maxwell refers to and am unable to comment on individual cases, however there are a range of safeguards in place for the management and supervision of different types of offenders at the conclusion of their sentence, depending on what sentencing decision a Court has made in relation to them.

If subject to a Community Correctional Order:

If an offender is sentenced to a Community Correctional Order (CCO), restrictive conditions can be imposed by the courts that could restrict the offender’s ability to:

• live within close proximity of a school

• contact or associate with a ‘class of person’ specified in the order (e.g. children under a certain age)

• only reside at a particular address specified on the order

• enter or remain in a specified place of area, and

• leave a place specified in the order (e.g. nominated residence) between specified hours of each day for a period specified on the order.

The court imposes the conditions on the order. Community Correctional Services (CCS) staff manage individuals subject to CCOs.

If subject to parole:

Prisoners eligible for parole are not automatically considered and must demonstrate their motivation for parole by making an application to the Adult Parole Board (APB). Prisoners can apply for parole 12 months prior to their Earliest Eligibility Date (EED), to allow for a robust and comprehensive Parole Suitability Assessment (PSA). The assessment undertaken by CCS considers the individual risks of the prisoner and strategies to mitigate their risk to the community. This may include conditions such as assessment and treatment for drug, alcohol and/or mental health, participation in offence-specific programs, drug testing and no contact with a person or group of persons, in addition to restrictive conditions such as curfew, alcohol abstinence and area exclusions, all of which can be electronically monitored. These conditions are imposed at the APB’s discretion depending on a prisoner’s individual risk and needs. However, all prisoners granted parole will be subject to 10 core conditions, including that they must not break the law, must report to CCS or the APB as directed, must not leave the State without permission, comply with directions and notify changes in their circumstances.

In completing the PSA, CCS conduct an assessment of a prisoner’s proposed address which is considered by the APB when deciding whether to grant parole. In assessing a property, CCS interview prisoners and their proposed co-residents and gather information from various sources such as Victoria Police, Child Protection and the Victims’ Register.

If subject to a post-sentence supervision order

Where an offender is nearing the end of their prison sentence, and a court determines that the offender is an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious sexual or violent offence upon their release from custody, then the court may impose a supervision order in accordance with the Serious Offenders Act 2018. A supervision order is made with a number of conditions that aim to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending. Conditions on a supervision order can include:

• a requirement that the offender reside in specified accommodation

• a requirement that the offender comply with electronic monitoring as to their whereabouts

• a prohibition on having contact with children

• a prohibition on attending certain locations (schools/parks/playgrounds).

The accommodation where each supervised offender is required to reside is thoroughly assessed prior to the offender residing there. The purpose of this is to ensure there are minimal environmental risks associated with the offender’s placement that are specific to the offender’s risk of offending.

If a registered sex offender in Victoria

The Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 requires registered offenders who commit sexual offences to keep police informed of their whereabouts and other personal details for a period of time.

Being registered requires offenders to report details to Victoria Police including any contact with children, residential and frequented addresses, travel and employment, for the reporting period. Being registered also prohibits the offender from applying for or engaging in employment that is child-related. This is defined in the legislation as employment that “inherently involves or includes contact with a child”.

I thank Ms Maxwell again for her continued advocacy on these important matters.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (25 November 2020)

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

I would like to acknowledge the important role of the parents and other volunteers in our schools, who provide valuable assistance and support to students, teachers and the broader school community.

The role of volunteers is especially critical during Term 4, as schools support students to transition back to on-site learning and there’s a renewed focus on providing continuity of learning and support for every student.

As Minister for Education, my greatest responsibility is the wellbeing of students, school staff and the school community. That is why the Andrews Labor Government has always followed, and will continue to follow, the advice of the Victorian Chief Health Officer.

Now that we have reached the Last Step of Victoria’s roadmap to reopening as of 23 November, I am pleased to advise that parent volunteers and other visitors can once again resume regular activities in Victorian schools. COVIDSafe principles and practices must continue to be followed, including physical distancing and face mask advice, and regular hand hygiene. Gathering limits for the community apply to visitor groups (group limit of 20 people indoors and 50 people outdoors).

I know that as I am, our school leaders, teachers and students are pleased to welcome parent volunteers and other volunteers back to schools during Term 4.

Western Metropolitan Region

In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (25 November 2020)

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):

The Gambling Regulation Act 2003 currently requires gaming machines in hotels and clubs to be shut down for four hours each day. This restriction reflects that gaming is a legitimate recreational activity and government has a responsibility to balance the interests of industry and consumers who choose to participate, while protecting those who may be vulnerable to harm. The restriction is one of a suite of consumer protections that have been put in place to reduce gambling related harm across the State.

The Government is taking other steps to address problem gambling across Victoria. In the 2019–20 Budget, the government provided the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (the Foundation) with $153 million over the next four years. This represents the nation’s largest commitment to address problem gambling. The Foundation delivers communication and education strategies, commissions research, and works with Gambler’s Help agencies to deliver counselling and treatment services to people experiencing harm from gambling.

Other government reforms to reduce gambling-related harm include:

• Introducing Australia’s first state-wide networked pre-commitment scheme, YourPlay, which allows Victorians to set limits on how much time and money they spend on gaming machines. Through this, players are assisted to identify and change problematic playing behaviours.

• Prohibiting ATMs in gaming venues and imposing $200 transaction and $500 daily EFTPOS withdrawal limits. Victoria is the only mainland jurisdiction without ATMs in gaming venues. Further prohibitions apply on cash advanced from a credit account and on cashing cheques at gaming venues.

• Capping the total number of gaming machines in the State until 2042 and setting regional caps and municipal limits on gaming machine entitlements. The caps and limits help to ensure that Victoria remains the Australian jurisdiction with the lowest density of gaming machines, except for Western Australia (which does not permit gaming machines outside the casino).

• Strengthening Responsible Gambling Codes of Conduct (codes) for venue operators from September 2020. The new codes will improve harm minimisation and must include a statement that a venue operator has a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent and minimise harm from the operation of gaming machines.

Western Victoria Region

In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (25 November 2020)

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

The Victorian Government greatly values the work of the Modewarre fire brigade and the selfless contribution of its members to the safety and wellbeing of the community.

The government recognises the needs of the Modewarre Fire Brigade and is pleased to provide funding for a new fire station in the State Budget, as announced by the Member for South Barwon on 24 November 2020. As part of the government’s $126 million CFA Capability Funding package, $1.5 million has been committed to replace the existing 37-year-old fire station. The new station will include a motor room, changing areas for volunteers, a meeting room, office, and associated operational and support areas to facilitate service delivery to the community into the future.

The government has also provided funding for the installation of a new shed through a $114,800 contribution from the Emergency Services Refurbishment Fund. The shed will accommodate two tankers and provide storage for equipment while the new station is being built. The shed will be incorporated into the site design for the new fire station.

I trust that you will welcome this announcement of funding for a new station and hope this clarifies matters for you.

Written responses to questions without notice

Responses have been incorporated in the form provided to Hansard and received in the period shown.

27 November to 10 December 2020

National redress scheme

In reply to Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I share the Member’s concern about the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ continued refusal to join the National Redress Scheme. The Andrews Labor Government has made it clear that it expects all organisations with a known redress liability, and that have the means, to immediately join the National Redress Scheme so that survivors can access redress.

In April 2020, the Ministers’ Redress Scheme Governance Board (Ministers’ Board) announced that if organisations named in redress applications refused to join the Scheme, they would face financial sanctions applied by state, territory and Commonwealth governments, including changes to their charitable status. In Victoria, any organisation that has been named in a redress application and has the means to join the National Redress Scheme, must join as a condition of receiving Victorian Government funding. However, the Victorian Government does not provide any funding to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I have strongly urged the Commonwealth Government to remove both charitable and deductible gift recipient (DGR) status of organisations who refuse to join the Scheme.

Because of the activities you describe in your supplementary question, removing federal charitable status is of much greater financial value to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is the factor that will really make the difference.

Charitable status is a subsidy from the Australian people and should not be given to organisations that hide from their responsibilities in acknowledging the enormous harm they have caused to children in their care.

The Ministers’ Board is meeting on Friday 27 November 2020. I will take that opportunity to once again push the Commonwealth to move quickly to remove the charitable and DGR status of recalcitrant organisations. Victim survivors have waited far too long for justice.

Gig economy

In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

Substantive Question

In 2018, the Victorian Government commissioned the Inquiry into the Victorian On-Demand Workforce in response to concerns about the wages and conditions of workers in the on-demand or ‘gig’ economy.

The Inquiry has completed its investigations and in July 2020 it submitted a report to Government. The Report made 20 recommendations aimed at better protecting on-demand workers. The Victorian Government is now considering all feedback received before responding to the Inquiry’s Report.

From 1 July 2020, WorkSafe commenced including occupational road deaths as part of its routine workplace fatality reports. The government does not shy away from these tragedies.

Under the Victorian Government recent reforms, road-related occupational deaths can be considered under the criminal offence of industrial manslaughter. This is to ensure that operators of the gig economy must do everything in their power to ensure the safety of their delivery agents.

The TAC continues to keep records of transport accidents that occur at work. TAC works closely with WorkSafe to ensure that there is a consistent approach to enhancing the safety of gig economy workers on the road.

Supplementary Question

In 2016, VicRoads implemented the Motorcycle Graduated Licensing System (M-GLS). This is a three stage licencing process which enables motorcyclists to obtain their license using best practice, evidence based training methods. Riders need to complete this world leading program to obtain a license to ride any approved motorbike—this includes scooters, road bikes, trail bikes, and postie bikes such as you may see making deliveries around town.

The Motorcycle Graduated License System has been adopted by other jurisdictions and preliminary data indicates that it is saving lives. Anyone who wishes to gain a motorcycle licence in Victoria must undergo the M-GLS. Those riders who have a motorcycle licence issued by another country, may also need to undergo additional training depending on factors such as the issuing country and the rider’s age.

Many M-GLS providers also offer post licence training which often can be tailored to the skills or ability of the rider. VicRoads encourages all motorcyclists to continue to maintain and improve their riding skills and take advantage of the training courses on offer.

The roads are a workplace for many Victorians. Road Safety Victoria—who are leading the development of Victoria’s the next road strategy together with the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and Worksafe have started considering further programs or initiatives that could be made available to ensure all road users are safe on our roads, including those who are working to keep goods and services moving.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (24 November 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Victorian Government QR Code Service launched to the public on Monday 30 November. Victorian business owners across the state can now access a free QR Code Service. Data collected by this service will be securely stored on Service Victoria servers for 28 days unless it is needed for coronavirus (COVID‐19) contact tracing purposes. If the data is not needed for that purpose, it will be deleted automatically after 28 days.

Businesses and venues assessing other platforms in the free market should ask how data is stored, where it is stored and if the platform stands ready to assist the Department of Health and Human Services in the event the data is needed for contact tracing.

Businesses and venues should actively engage with their chosen provider about how the solution is protected from online scammers and how the system can work for each specific business or venue to meet their security needs. Businesses should also review the various step by step guides that are available to them online to ensure best practice.

Businesses should regularly check QR codes on display within their premises to ensure they have been placed by the business or venue proprietor and not by a malicious party.

Volunteer firefighters

In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (24 November 2020)

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I am advised:

The Government is committed to supporting Country Fire Authority (CFA) volunteers and is providing $126 million over 5 years in capability funding for new training, facilities and equipment.

In 2019–20 financial year CFA had almost 55,000 volunteers undertaking operational and support functions.

As at 31 October 2020, the CFA had 30,817 operational volunteers.

As at 31 March 2018, the CFA had 34,983 operational volunteers.

During the 2019–20 financial year, there was a shift in the classification of approximately 3,400 members from operational to non-operational roles. This change reflects the reclassification of some members who had not completed critical safety training required by the CFA Chief Officer, or who no longer wished to respond to emergencies for a range of reasons. If members choose to regain their operational status, they must complete the required training. The CFA’s Chief Officer has been clear over a number of years, and prior to the reclassification, that member safety is of the utmost importance and anyone responding on the fireground must have completed the required training packages. This change in member classification has not affected CFA’s capacity to respond to incidents and major emergencies.

Recidivism rates

In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (25 November 2020)

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I am advised:

Rehabilitation and reintegration programs are critical to enhancing community safety and reducing reoffending. Prisoners experience a complex range of health issues compared to the general public, including higher levels of mental illness, substance use and chronic and communicable diseases.

The Victorian prison system provides a range of treatment options to help address substance use problems. These services are targeted at rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.

Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) programs and services in prison include: (1) health programs to reduce the harms of drug use; (2) programs to address the link between drug use and offending behaviour to reduce reoffending; (3) individual counselling; and (4) pharmacotherapy treatment for prisoners with opioid addiction like heroin.

Prisoners with a history of alcohol and/or drug use are offered a comprehensive suite of treatment options, including: (1) participation in the Identified Drug User (IDU) program which aims to educate users about the risks of AOD use and motivate them towards ceasing AOD use; (2) short-duration health-focused programs (of up to 24 hours) which aim to reduce the harms of AOD use; (3) intensive long-term group treatment programs (from 40 hours up to 130 hours or six months) which aim to break the nexus between AOD use and offending; and (4) pharmacotherapy treatment for prisoners with opioid dependency (from pain medication through to heroin).

Addressing these issues while prisoners are in custody increases the likelihood of breaking the cycle of AOD use and reoffending on release.

In addition to prison-based programs and services, a treatment program called KickStart is delivered through AOD service providers in the community to offenders on community-based orders. The programs provide intensive AOD treatment that addresses the relationship between offending behaviour and substance use.

Public housing

In reply to Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (26 November 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I thank the Member for his question and interest in the $5.3 billion Big Housing Build, the largest social and affordable housing investment Victoria has ever seen.

Victoria has been through a period of unprecedented growth and change. While this record growth has presented amazing opportunities for the State, it is also a driver of housing affordability challenges, particularly for those who are vulnerable or on low incomes.

The combination of historical population growth, affordability pressures and prevalence of issues such as mental illness, family violence and homelessness have all seen an increase in demand for housing assistance on the Victorian Housing Register.

That is why the Victorian Government has responded with record investment into social and affordable housing.

The Big Housing Build will create over 12,000 new dwellings. Tenants for social housing properties will be allocated from the Victorian Housing Register, reducing the number of Victorians waiting for social housing on the Victorian Housing Register. 2,000 Victorians with mental illness and 1,000 victim survivors of family violence are expected to be housed through this package. 1,000 homes will also be provided for Aboriginal Victorians.

And it comes on top of $498 million for the refurbishment and maintenance of existing social housing dwellings, $209 million to build 1,000 new public housing dwellings, $150 million for the From Homelessness to a Home program, $112 million package for energy efficient upgrades to social housing and the $185 million Public Housing Renewal Program.

In relation to the supplementary question, the Government will assess the most appropriate models for delivering future developments in the Big Housing Build.

Homes Victoria is designing and contracting the construction of the initial six ‘fast start’ sites. It is not the case that these sites are being handed over to private developers, and Homes Victoria will still own the dwellings at the end of the construction period.

Overall Homes Victoria is expected to own at least 6,800 of additional homes that will be delivered through the Big Housing Build, representing around 55% of all dwellings built.

The community housing sector makes up 25 per cent of all social housing in the state. We are committed to increasing the size and capacity of the community housing sector to respond to the housing needs of the Victorian community.

The sector is independently regulated by the Victorian Housing Registrar and already delivers high quality housing and services to thousands of Victorians, and it has the capacity to amplify government investment to deliver more homes. The recent funding round of the Social Housing Growth Fund demonstrated the community housing sector’s ability to leverage government investment by contributing external land and finance to deliver 780 new homes.

Public housing remains central to Victoria’s housing response. That is why the Big Housing Build includes the renewal of 1,100 outdated public homes and an additional $300 million invested directly into the public housing system. This is complemented by $265 million from our Building Works package for maintenance, upgrades and renovations of public housing stock.

Family violence animal welfare

In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (26 November 2020)

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I am advised:

Victoria Police and RSPCA Victoria have a Collaborative Information Sharing Agreement in place which details how the two organisations work collaboratively on investigating animal cruelty offences. The agreement has provisions in relation to information sharing, and when RSPCA Victoria should contact Victoria Police for support. It also states that RSPCA Victoria keeps Victoria Police informed of any court outcomes where RSPCA Victoria is the lead prosecutor.

Homelessness

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (26 November 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I thank the Member for his question and his interest in providing safe and secure accommodation for vulnerable Victorians experiencing homelessness. The Victorian Government is committed to assisting people experiencing homelessness who are currently staying in hotels to transition into stable housing.

On 28 July 2020 the Victorian Government announced the $150 million From Homelessness to a Home Package. This investment includes:

• More than $46 million in Housing Establishment Funds to enable ongoing emergency accommodation support until April 2021 for people experiencing homelessness accommodated in hotels.

• More than $56 million has been allocated to deliver targeted, tailored and intensive support packages for medium-term housing.

• Funding for the Private Rental Assistance Program has also been increased to assist people with less complex needs to be supported into affordable private rental accommodation.

• The provision of up to 1,200 homes, which includes leased properties from the private rental market and around 600 purchased social housing properties. These properties will be available over the coming months.

There are around 2,500 people currently residing temporarily in hotels across Victoria. Specialist homelessness services are working hard to support people experiencing homelessness into longer term housing options. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 over 8,000 people have been supported into emergency accommodation. In addition to hotel accommodation, almost 7,000 Victorians have also been assisted into private rental during the COVID-19 health emergency.

With the above initiatives the Government expects homelessness service agencies to find alternative accommodation options for those residing in hotel accommodation to transition int o, as the use of hotels as crisis accommodation is wound down over the coming months.

Budget 2020–21

In reply to Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

Interest rates on TCV bonds are at historic low rates and borrowings costs are expected to remain low for an extended period. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is not expected to increase the cash rate for at least another three years. The RBA Governor has stated that “the Australian and State governments will be able to finance their borrowings at extraordinarily low rates for a long period of time”.

Since the announcement of the credit rating downgrade the impact on TCV’s cost of funds has been minimal. We estimate the impact of this decision by S&P will be roughly $10 million.

The Victorian Government is providing significant support to the agriculture sector through the recent Victorian State Budget.

$65 million is being invested to deliver on a new Agriculture Strategy, which includes:

• $15 million to access leading AgTech, innovative farming methods and new skills

• $20 million for the Food to Market and Pathways to Export programs which will help producers expand their export potential and take advantage of dedicated agriculture export resources, and

• $30 million to extend the Agriculture Energy Investment Plan, which helps farmers reduce their energy costs, and become more energy efficient and productive.

This investment to support the sector comes in addition to a new $50 million Agricultural College Modernisation Program.

This $115 million investment, and the new Agriculture Strategy, will support the sector and position it to take advantage of new skills and opportunities for future growth.

Commercial passenger vehicle industry

In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020)

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

Response:

Commercial passenger vehicles are an essential part of Victoria’s public transport system and the Government is committed to creating an industry that is safe for all participants and passengers.

Government reforms introduced a comprehensive safety duties regime that places obligations on all industry participants, including booking service providers, vehicle owners and drivers. Those duties require both booked and unbooked service providers to ensure the safety of the services they provide and to respond to safety risks as they change over time.

The Government will monitor and respond to safety risks as they evolve over time. This monitoring will also inform whether any further interventions are warranted.

There is no prohibition on the installation of security cameras in booked only vehicles. However, security cameras in all commercial passenger vehicles must comply with the requirements of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 and the Privacy Act 1988.

Installing cameras of a type and class approved by the industry regulator, Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV), ensures compliance with those legal requirements. CPVV publishes a list of all approved cameras on its website.

Response:

The Government takes all criminal activity seriously. The industry regulator works together with Victoria Police to identify and prevent criminal activity within the Victorian community and the commercial passenger vehicle industry.

Security camera specifications for commercial passenger vehicles vary between jurisdictions. The current Victorian security camera specification, which was released in July 2018, is a forward-looking specification that has been used as the basis for camera specifications in other Australian jurisdictions.

In Victoria, security cameras in commercial passenger vehicles are prohibited from audio recording in accordance with section 270 of the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017. The Government considers the current Victorian approach strikes the right balance between safety and privacy.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (8 December 2020)

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I am advised:

The COVID-19 Accommodation program is underpinned by a robust operating framework where stream-specific operating models have been developed.

These models are supported by a range of detailed Operating Instructions (OIs) which clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of staff, as well as the standards and actions required to provide safe, efficient and effective operations.

All program streams operate on the basis of strong Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) to deliver against the objective of stopping the spread of COVID-19, coupled with a strong focus on the health and wellbeing for those in quarantine/isolation.

In relation to making the OIs publicly available, COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV) intends to publish these on a centralised, publicly available website, in late January, early February. They are currently being reviewed to bring them in line with minor modifications that have been made to our operations in light of the interim report of the Board of Inquiry, and to incorporate the new structure of CQV rather than the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS).

The OIs are subject to ongoing review and update.

Timber industry

In reply to Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (8 December 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Forest Legislation Amendments (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019 was passed in the Legislative Assembly on 20 February 2020. Since this date, native timber harvesting operations have been interrupted by illegal forest protests 34 times. The majority of timber harvesting operations impacted by illegal forest protests resumed on the same day following the attendance of Authorised Officers or Victoria Police.

Since 1 January 2020, 66 penalty infringement notices have been issued to illegal forest protestors (this is in addition to seven COVID-19 related infringements). This represents approximately $200,000 in fines.

A total of 20 penalty notices have been issued under section 77D of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 to date this year. This is in addition to 25 penalty notices under section 77G and 19 penalty notices under section 77H of the Act. One penalty notice has been issued under section 57Q(1) of the Forests Act 1958 and one penalty notice for littering.

Since the announcement of the Victorian Forestry Plan in November 2019, my department has significantly increased its focus on managing illegal forest protests. Further illegal forest protests that disrupt native timber harvesting operations can expect a rapid same day response and the application of all penalties available to Authorised Officers and Victoria Police.

COVID-19

In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (9 December 2020)

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Resources):

The Chief Health Officer directions issued under Section 200 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 currently prevent a person from arranging to meet, organise or intentionally attend a public gathering, in a public place with more than 99 other persons (infants under one not included). If an event is likely to exceed the public gathering limits, it would need to meet requirements under the Public Events Framework.

Under the Public Events Framework, organisers of an event- including a protest - must meet requirements such as having a COVIDSafe Event Plan and event checklists in place and published online.

Under the Public Events Framework, up to 1000 people can attend an event such as a protest without the event requiring approval. Organisers of events larger than 1000 people require approval under the Public Events Framework from the Victorian Government, including consideration by the Public Health Advisory Panel, the Chief Health Officer and the Major Events Ministerial Taskforce. This process is to ensure that events are planned and run in a COVIDSafe way that maintains the safety of the community.

As facilitated by the Government, the Chief Health Officer provided a briefing on the extension of the State of Emergency and issues including lawful protest were discussed and I’m advised that further advice was provided regarding gatherings of more than 100 people and the requirement for event organisers to apply under the Public Offence Framework to ensure their COVIDSafe plans meet requirements.

Veterans housing

In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (9 December 2020)

Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood):

I thank Dr Cumming for her question and acknowledge her interest in affordable, safe and secure housing for veterans.

In the 2020–21 Budget, the Andrews Labor Government has committed $5.3 billion to deliver more than 12,000 new social and affordable homes across the state. The Big Housing Build is Victoria’s largest ever investment in new social housing supply. It will create tens of thousands of jobs and support Victoria’s building and construction industry as our economy recovers from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic.

In relation to housing for veterans, tenants for the 8,200 new social housing properties will be allocated from the Victorian Housing Register. This ensures that our investment will go to vulnerable households who need it the most, such as those experiencing homelessness, people with mental illness, applicants aged over 55 or family violence victim survivors. The Victorian Housing Register prioritises applicants according to their needs and as such any veteran who is over 55 or impacted by family violence or disability or experiencing homelessness will be considered for priority access.

In addition to this investment, the Government has also provided $1.3 million funding in the 2020–21 Budget to assist veterans with complex needs in finding secure accommodation. This will include an audit to identify service gaps in the sector, targeted pilots to address the gaps and program evaluation. This will inform opportunities for housing for veterans to be developed in the Big Housing Build, providing better accommodation support for veterans.

I am aware through the Minister for Veterans that there are already a number of RSLs and other Ex Service Organisations who have land and existing facilities that they wish to use for the purposes of accommodation for veterans. Homes Victoria will be holding discussions with these organisations as, well as facilitating discussions between them and the community housing sector, to develop these proposals and maximise the opportunities they provide to build more secure and affordable housing for veterans. I welcome any proposals from Ex Service Organisations to be presented to Homes Victoria to look for partnership opportunities, and look forward to getting the best value and best outcomes for veterans from these projects.

As part of the reforms that accompany the Big Housing Build, Homes Victoria is developing a Ten Year Social and Affordable Housing Strategy, which will set a shared long-term vision and objectives to continue to grow the social housing system. Homes Victoria will look to engage with a broad range of stakeholders through the community consultation process for the ten year strategy. We welcome input from the Victorian Veterans Council and other key organisations representing veterans in Victoria and will work with them to identify the needs of veterans.

Once again, I thank the Member for Western Metropolitan Region for her interest in the Big Housing Build and the welfare of our veterans.