PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 8 JUNE 2021

hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

The Governor The Honourable LINDA DESSAU, AC The Lieutenant-Governor The Honourable KEN LAY, AO, APM

The ministry

Premier...... The Hon. DM Andrews, MP Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Minister for Mental Health .. The Hon. JA Merlino, MP Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Services ...... The Hon. J Symes, MLC Minister for Transport Infrastructure and Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop ...... The Hon. JM Allan, MP Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for Higher Education .... The Hon. GA Tierney, MLC Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Minister for Industrial Relations ...... The Hon. TH Pallas, MP Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Roads and Road Safety . The Hon. BA Carroll, MP Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and Minister for Solar Homes ...... The Hon. L D’Ambrosio, MP Minister for Child Protection and Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers ...... The Hon. LA Donnellan, MP Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services and Minister for Equality ...... The Hon. MP Foley, MP Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation and Minister for Fishing and Boating ...... The Hon. MM Horne, MP Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice and Minister for Victim Support ...... The Hon. NM Hutchins, MP Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development and Minister for Veterans ...... The Hon. SL Leane, MLC Minister for Water and Minister for Police ...... The Hon. LM Neville, MP Minister for Industry Support and Recovery, Minister for Trade, Minister for Business Precincts, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events and Minister for Racing ...... The Hon. MP Pakula, MP Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services and Minister for Creative Industries ...... The Hon. DJ Pearson, MP Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business and Minister for Resources ...... The Hon. JL Pulford, MLC Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth ...... The Hon. RL Spence, MP Minister for Workplace Safety and Minister for Early Childhood ...... The Hon. I Stitt, MLC Minister for Agriculture and Minister for Regional Development ...... The Hon. M Thomas, MP Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs ...... The Hon. G Williams, MP Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing ...... The Hon. RW Wynne, MP Cabinet Secretary ...... Ms S Kilkenny, MP Legislative Council committees

Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee Mr Barton, Mr Erdogan, Mr Finn, Mr Gepp, Mrs McArthur, Mr Quilty and Mr Tarlamis. Participating members: Dr Bach, Ms Bath, Dr Cumming, Mr Davis, Mr Limbrick, Ms Lovell, Mr Meddick, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Rich-Phillips, Ms Shing, Ms Vaghela and Ms Watt.

Environment and Planning Standing Committee Dr Bach, Ms Bath, Dr Cumming, Mr Grimley, Mr Hayes, Mr Meddick, Mr Melhem, Dr Ratnam, Ms Taylor and Ms Terpstra. Participating members: Ms Crozier, Mr Davis, Dr Kieu, Mrs McArthur and Mr Quilty.

Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee Ms Garrett, Dr Kieu, Ms Lovell, Ms Maxwell, Mr Ondarchie, Ms Patten, Dr Ratnam and Ms Vaghela. Participating members: Dr Bach, Mr Barton, Ms Bath, Ms Crozier, Dr Cumming, Mr Erdogan, Mr Grimley, Mr Limbrick, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Quilty, Ms Shing, Mr Tarlamis and Ms Watt.

Privileges Committee Mr Atkinson, Mr Bourman, Mr Davis, Mr Grimley, Mr Leane, Mr Rich-Phillips, Ms Shing, Ms Symes and Ms Tierney.

Procedure Committee The President, the Deputy President, Ms Crozier, Mr Davis, Mr Grimley, Dr Kieu, Ms Patten, Ms Pulford and Ms Symes.

Joint committees

Dispute Resolution Committee Council: Mr Bourman, Ms Crozier, Mr Davis, Ms Symes and Ms Tierney. Assembly: Ms Allan, Ms Hennessy, Mr Merlino, Mr Pakula, Mr R Smith, Mr Walsh and Mr Wells.

Electoral Matters Committee Council: Mr Erdogan, Mrs McArthur, Mr Meddick, Mr Melhem, Ms Lovell, Mr Quilty and Mr Tarlamis. Assembly: Mr Guy, Ms Hall and Dr Read.

House Committee Council: The President (ex officio), Mr Bourman, Mr Davis, Mr Leane, Ms Lovell and Ms Stitt. Assembly: The Speaker (ex officio), Mr T Bull, Ms Crugnale, Ms Edwards, Mr Fregon, Ms Sandell and Ms Staley.

Integrity and Oversight Committee Council: Mr Grimley and Ms Shing. Assembly: Mr Halse, Ms Hennessy, Mr Rowswell, Mr Taylor and Mr Wells.

Public Accounts and Estimates Committee Council: Mr Limbrick and Ms Taylor. Assembly: Ms Blandthorn, Mr Hibbins, Mr Maas, Mr Newbury, Mr D O’Brien, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson and Mr Riordan.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee Council: Mr Gepp, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra and Ms Watt. Assembly: Mr Burgess, Ms Connolly and Mr R Smith.

Heads of parliamentary departments

Assembly: Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Ms B Noonan Council: Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Council: Mr A Young Parliamentary Services: Secretary: Mr P Lochert MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

President The Hon. N ELASMAR (from 18 June 2020) The Hon. SL LEANE (to 18 June 2020) Deputy President The Hon. WA LOVELL Acting Presidents Mr Bourman, Mr Gepp, Mr Melhem and Ms Patten Leader of the Government The Hon. J SYMES Deputy Leader of the Government The Hon. GA TIERNEY Leader of the Opposition The Hon. DM DAVIS Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms G CROZIER

Member Region Party Member Region Party

Atkinson, Mr Bruce Norman Eastern Metropolitan LP Maxwell, Ms Tania Maree Northern Victoria DHJP Bach, Dr Matthew1 Eastern Metropolitan LP Meddick, Mr Andy Western Victoria AJP Barton, Mr Rodney Brian Eastern Metropolitan TMP Melhem, Mr Cesar Western Metropolitan ALP Bath, Ms Melina Gaye Eastern Victoria Nats Mikakos, Ms Jenny5 Northern Metropolitan ALP Bourman, Mr Jeffrey Eastern Victoria SFFP O’Donohue, Mr Edward John Eastern Victoria LP Crozier, Ms Georgina Mary Southern Metropolitan LP Ondarchie, Mr Craig Philip Northern Metropolitan LP Cumming, Dr Catherine Rebecca Western Metropolitan Ind Patten, Ms Fiona Heather Northern Metropolitan FPRP Dalidakis, Mr Philip2 Southern Metropolitan ALP Pulford, Ms Jaala Lee Western Victoria ALP Davis, Mr David McLean Southern Metropolitan LP Quilty, Mr Timothy Northern Victoria LDP Elasmar, Mr Nazih Northern Metropolitan ALP Ratnam, Dr Samantha Shantini Northern Metropolitan Greens Erdogan, Mr Enver3 Southern Metropolitan ALP Rich-Phillips, Mr Gordon Kenneth South Eastern Metropolitan LP Finn, Mr Bernard Thomas Christopher Western Metropolitan LP Shing, Ms Harriet Eastern Victoria ALP Garrett, Ms Jane Furneaux Eastern Victoria ALP Somyurek, Mr Adem6 South Eastern Metropolitan Ind Gepp, Mr Mark Northern Victoria ALP Stitt, Ms Ingrid Western Metropolitan ALP Grimley, Mr Stuart James Western Victoria DHJP Symes, Ms Jaclyn Northern Victoria ALP Hayes, Mr Clifford Southern Metropolitan SAP Tarlamis, Mr Lee7 South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Jennings, Mr Gavin Wayne4 South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Taylor, Ms Nina Southern Metropolitan ALP Kieu, Dr Tien Dung South Eastern Metropolitan ALP Terpstra, Ms Sonja Eastern Metropolitan ALP Leane, Mr Shaun Leo Eastern Metropolitan ALP Tierney, Ms Gayle Anne Western Victoria ALP Limbrick, Mr David South Eastern Metropolitan LDP Vaghela, Ms Kaushaliya Virjibhai Western Metropolitan ALP Lovell, Ms Wendy Ann Northern Victoria LP Watt, Ms Sheena8 Northern Metropolitan ALP McArthur, Mrs Beverley Western Victoria LP Wooldridge, Ms Mary Louise Newling9 Eastern Metropolitan LP

1 Appointed 5 March 2020 5 Resigned 26 September 2020 2 Resigned 17 June 2019 6 ALP until 15 June 2020 3 Appointed 15 August 2019 7 Appointed 23 April 2020 4 Resigned 23 March 2020 8 Appointed 13 October 2020 9 Resigned 28 February 2020

Party abbreviations

AJP—Animal Justice Party; ALP—Labor Party; DHJP—Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party; FPRP—Fiona Patten’s Reason Party; Greens—Australian Greens; Ind—Independent; LDP—Liberal Democratic Party; LP—Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals; SAP—Sustainable Australia Party; SFFP—Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party; TMP—Transport Matters Party

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 1963 BILLS Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Bill 2021 ...... 1963 Royal assent ...... 1963 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ...... 1963 ANNOUNCEMENTS COVID-19 ...... 1964 COMMITTEES Integrity and Oversight Committee ...... 1964 Membership ...... 1964 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS COVID-19 vaccination ...... 1964 COVID-19 ...... 1965 Ministers statements: small business support ...... 1966 COVID-19 ...... 1967 WorkCover claims management ...... 1968 Ministers statements: disability advice and response team ...... 1969 COVID-19 ...... 1969 COVID-19 ...... 1970 Ministers statements: Reconnect program ...... 1971 Small business support ...... 1972 Medically supervised injecting facilities ...... 1972 Ministers statements: early childhood education...... 1974 Written responses ...... 1974 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 1974 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 1975 Western Victoria Region ...... 1975 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 1975 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 1975 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 1976 Northern Victoria Region ...... 1976 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 1976 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 1977 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 1977 Eastern Victoria Region ...... 1977 Northern Victoria Region ...... 1977 Western Victoria Region ...... 1978 Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 1978 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 1978 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 1978 Alert Digest No. 7 ...... 1978 PAPERS Papers ...... 1978 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 1979 General business ...... 1979 COMMITTEES Environment and Planning Committee ...... 1980 Reporting dates ...... 1980 MEMBERS STATEMENTS COVID-19 ...... 1980 Melbourne City Revitalisation Fund ...... 1980 COVID-19 ...... 1981 Cafe 3641 ...... 1981 North East Link Project tree removal ...... 1981 COVID-19 ...... 1982 Commercial passenger vehicle industry ...... 1982 COVID-19 ...... 1982 Multicultural communities ...... 1983 Living standards ...... 1983 BILLS Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021 ...... 1984 Second reading ...... 1984 Third reading ...... 1990 State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 1990 Second reading ...... 1990 Committee ...... 2028 Third reading ...... 2044 ADJOURNMENT Impact ...... 2046 Suburban parks program ...... 2047 Wildlife conservation ...... 2047 COVID-19 vaccination ...... 2048 COVID-19 ...... 2048 Greenvale police resources ...... 2048 Sentencing reform ...... 2049 COVID-19 ...... 2049 Fines revenue ...... 2050 Eastern Victoria Region roads ...... 2050 Caulfield train station ...... 2051 Wild horse control ...... 2052 COVID-19 ...... 2052 COVID-19 ...... 2053 Melbourne Airport rail link ...... 2053 Responses ...... 2054 WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Bell Street, Coburg and Preston, road safety ...... 2055 Alpine Better Places ...... 2055 Community sport ...... 2056 Online safety and consent education ...... 2056 Housing affordability ...... 2057 Power saving bonus program ...... 2057 Energy policy ...... 2058 Phillip Island Road, San Remo ...... 2058 Winton Wetlands ...... 2058 Emissions reduction targets ...... 2059 Point Cook police station ...... 2059 Markham estate redevelopment ...... 2060 Greater Shepparton Secondary College ...... 2060 TAFE funding ...... 2061 Victims of crime ...... 2062 Victoria Police procedures ...... 2062 TAFE funding ...... 2062 Bills Street, Hawthorn, redevelopment ...... 2063 Victorian Skills Authority ...... 2063 COVID-19 ...... 2064 Bendigo Kangan Institute, Broadmeadows ...... 2064 Point Cook Road ...... 2065 Pet registration fees ...... 2065 Sydney Road, Coburg, small businesses ...... 2066 Mont Albert and Surrey Hills train stations ...... 2067 Danny Jamieson ...... 2067

ANNOUNCEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1963

Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 11.36 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (11:37): 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. Bills ZERO AND LOW EMISSION VEHICLE DISTANCE-BASED CHARGE BILL 2021 Royal assent The PRESIDENT (11:37): I have a message from the Governor, dated 1 June:

The Governor informs the Legislative Council that she has, on this day, given the Royal Assent to the undermentioned Act of the present Session presented to her by the Clerk of the Parliaments: 18/2021 Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 Business of the house STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (11:38): I move, by leave:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to the extent necessary to allow the following temporary arrangements to come into effect immediately and remain in place until the house resolves otherwise: 1. Definition of Chamber The lower public galleries and the President’s lower galleries are taken to be part of the Legislative Council Chamber. 2. Discretion in ringing the bells to form a quorum (1) At the start of each day a quorum of 14 members must be present in the Chamber in order for the President to take the Chair and the sitting to proceed. (2) To assist with social distancing, the House gives the Chair further discretion in ringing the bells to form a quorum during the course of the sitting day under Standing Order 4.03(2), provided the Chair is confident that a quorum is present within the parliamentary precinct. 3. Members may incorporate their speeches for bills (1) If a Member wishes to incorporate their speech for the debate of the second reading of any bills debated they must electronically provide their speech to the Clerk (by email to [email protected]) by the time the House adjourns on the day the bill was debated. (2) Incorporated speeches will be published in Hansard after all second reading speeches made in the House (if any) for each Bill and before the Minister’s reply (if any). (3) If any matter contains unbecoming expressions or does not comply with the rules of debate, the President may direct that the matter be removed or amended before it is published. Motion agreed to. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1964 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Announcements COVID-19 The PRESIDENT (11:40): In light of the motion that the house has just agreed to in relation to temporary orders, I will make a brief statement outlining the special arrangements for the operation of the chamber this week. It is mandatory to wear masks, and members should only remove their masks when they have the call to speak. The two doors behind me are the entry points into the chamber, and the doors at the back of the house are the exit. Please remember to limit the number of people in the chamber at any given time. Members should not meet in small huddles in the chamber. The house will break at approximately 4.00 pm each day for about 15 minutes so the chamber can be cleaned. Members may submit their contributions to the second-reading debate of any bills considered in the house for incorporation in Hansard. Members should email those contributions to the table office by the time the house adjourns. Divisions will continue to operate under the temporary orders agreed to by the house on 23 April 2020; therefore members will be asked to stand in their place during a division. Sitting suspended 11.41 am until 12.07 pm. Committees INTEGRITY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Membership The PRESIDENT (12:07): I advise the house that I have received a letter from Mr Stephen McGhie, the member for Melton in the other place, resigning from the Integrity and Oversight Committee effective from Monday, 7 June 2021. Questions without notice and ministers statements COVID-19 VACCINATION Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:07): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, on the weekend you pointed at small businesses and said they needed to get their staff vaccinated, and you said lockdowns would continue until 70 per cent of the community had been vaccinated, and I ask: given you are urging small businesses to have their staff vaccinated, what percentage of the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions staff are currently fully vaccinated? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:08): I thank Mr Davis for his question. The pretext of Mr Davis’s question is fundamentally inaccurate. I have been meeting with hundreds and hundreds of people from the business community to brief them and talk them through questions and answers on the current restrictions that apply both in Melbourne and in regional Victoria. Mr Davis interjected. Ms PULFORD: The comment—and Mr Davis I think is being pretty cheeky in the way that he is verbalising it—related to a conversation that I have had with pretty much everyone I have spoken to online, in forums, in interactions with people, encouraging them to, if they are eligible, be vaccinated. This is consistent with the health advice of perhaps all epidemiologists on the planet and is entirely consistent with the messages from our chief health officer and public health team, the Minister for Health and everyone from this government and indeed many members from the opposition, who have been encouraging people to take up the opportunity to be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity. So when I had probably around 450 or so people at various forums, more actually, I did take the opportunity to encourage people as business and community leaders—there were many community leaders involved in those briefings as well—that where the opportunity presented itself to them it would be great if they could encourage vaccination. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1965

The 70 per cent comment that Mr Davis is referring to was very much an observation that 2 per cent is not very much. I spend most of my days talking to people in the business community who want to know when the international borders can open. They want to know when we will return to a prepandemic way of life. And the answer to that question of course is: when there is a widespread rate of vaccination. In terms of the specific question about the rate of vaccination in my department, I can take that on notice, and if that information is available, I will provide Mr Davis with further advice. To the best of my knowledge I do not know if the department is keeping that information about staff. I know that the department did make flu vaccinations available to all staff, and I am sure plenty of people took themselves up there. Members interjecting. Ms PULFORD: But vaccines are not mandated. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:11): The conclusion is that the minister is walking away from her statements in the Herald Sun, and the second point I would make is that she wants to walk away from the need for her to advocate inside her department. I therefore ask as a supplementary: given the AstraZeneca vaccine has been available for many, many months, what percentage of over-50s in the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions have had at least their first jab? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:11): Again, if that information is available, then I am happy to provide it to Mr Davis. I am not sure that it is, and unlike members of the Liberal Party, we respect the right to privacy of health records of individuals—unlike some of the filthy behaviour we saw overnight from the Shadow Treasurer. But I am absolutely an advocate for vaccinations. I could probably tell you to a reasonable degree the people in the department that I have been meeting with and their vaccination status, because it is a conversation that comes up each and every day. If Mr Davis is somehow covering up for the federal government on vaccinations or whatever he is doing, I encourage everybody who is eligible to be vaccinated to take up the opportunity, because I care very deeply about our small businesses and people in our community, and the sooner we have a high rate of vaccination, the more certain and confident they can be about their position. COVID-19 Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:12): My question is for the Minister for Small Business. The bravest speech that you will ever see was made by a young woman on Saturday at the small business protest at Flinders Street station. Meg is a woman who works in events and also happens to be a constituent of mine. With a wall of massive police officers in front of her, she said, ‘Listen to me. You guys want us to listen to you, but no-one’s listening to us. We’re here as businesses. We have families. Listen to me, please. And I say this on behalf of businesses that are struggling right now. I am just one; imagine the thousands. We are losing this. We can’t pay bills. We can’t do anything, because we’re losing money’. This is the point when the police moved in and arrested her. But to my mind she is a hero, and maybe if we are going to build statues around this city, we should build one of her. I am sure Meg and her supporters are watching right now. Minister, what are you going to do to help Meg and others like her? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:13): I thank Mr Limbrick for his advocacy on behalf of small business owners and operators. I am not familiar with the police operation and the protest and the circumstances that he speaks about, but I am more than happy to meet with Meg if she would like that. In terms of what we are doing to support small businesses and the business community, in the order of $7.5 billion of support has now been provided to small businesses. We are QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1966 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 supporting the federal government’s vaccine rollout. We are working with the federal government on a purpose-built quarantine facility. All of these things are ultimately what our small business community needs because the public health orders and the restrictions that are proving to be so incredibly challenging for our small business community are a consequence of the pandemic. Ms Crozier interjected. Ms PULFORD: Ms Crozier, if you want to move to Western Australia— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms PULFORD: We know you are in team ‘Let it rip’, but we will follow the public health advice. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:15): I thank the minister for her answer and agreeing to meet with Meg. I will pass that on to her. I am sure she will be very happy. With small businesses already up against the wall and many going under, on Saturday many showed up in desperation to make themselves heard. Many of them were arrested and fined. Do you think that some leniency here is appropriate for the small business owners? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:15): This is well beyond the scope of my areas of portfolio responsibility—the enforcement regime for the public health orders— so I will resist offering an opinion on that. I again express my willingness to meet with Meg. I meet with many small business owners and operators. I understand how incredibly difficult this is for many of them and particularly for people in some sectors. Mr Limbrick talked about the events sector. The events sector has been one of the hardest hit, and the uncertainty that will continue to present a challenge for people in the events industry is something that we can overcome by supporting and encouraging high rates of vaccination and by following the public health orders so that these short, sharp lockdowns are as short and as sharp as they possibly can be. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:17): I would like to take the opportunity, particularly given the level of interest in question time this morning, to update the house on some actions that our government has taken to support small businesses and medium-sized businesses that are experiencing hardship due to the necessary public health measures taken to keep all Victorians safe. I would like to again say that my heart absolutely goes out to those in our business community that are struggling at the moment, that are experiencing hardship and uncertainty at the moment. No-one wants us to be in this position, and we will continue to support our business community throughout. We certainly will be continuing to follow the health advice because that is the surest way for us to provide a certain operating environment for our businesses. I know and recognise that there are limits to the resilience of people in our small business community, and this last couple of weeks has been particularly challenging. The government initially announced $250.7 million in support for up to 90 000 Victorian small and medium-sized businesses, including many sole traders that have been most impacted by the circuit- breaker action. This includes $190 million for the business costs assistance program, which provides $2500 grants to up to 76 000 businesses with a payroll up to $10 million; and $40.7 million for the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund, providing $3500 grants to support up to 11 600 restaurants, pubs and hospitality venues to assist with paying rent and wages and replenishing perishable stock. We have subsequently announced a doubling of these support payments for businesses, and a new allocation of nearly $210 million has been provided. About 70 000 businesses in metro Melbourne and regional Victoria that remain impacted will be eligible for total support of $5000. There has also been a further $30 million announced to support the tourism industry and operators, many of whom QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1967 are also small businesses. This takes the form of grants and vouchers and is in recognition of the particular impact on the coming long weekend. COVID-19 Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:19): My question is to the Leader of the Government. Minister, on Wednesday, 26 May, you, along with only six of your cabinet colleagues, were provided with a briefing from the chief health officer (CHO) where you collectively decided to lock down the state. Part of the basis for the lockdown was because of the stranger-to-stranger transmission. Both Jeroen Weimar and the chief health officer cited the case at Brighton Beach Hotel and another case at a display home in Mickleham where stranger-to-stranger transmission had occurred, yet both of those cases were in fact false positives. The Brighton hotel case was told on the Tuesday morning and the Mickleham display home case on the Wednesday morning that they were false positives. These cases were used as the basis to lock down the entire state, so I ask: did the chief health officer brief you and your colleagues on the status of those two cases that the department was aware of as being false positives? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:20): I thank Ms Crozier for her question. At the outset, there are eight members of the Coordinating Ministers Council, not seven. We meet— Ms Crozier: Who is the eighth, then? Ms SYMES: I am not sure which one you are missing, but I can— Members interjecting. Ms SYMES: It is the lead ministers of each department. The advice that we receive in those cabinet meetings is very thorough. We have been meeting daily since perhaps the 26th, perhaps earlier, as outbreaks have started to be brought to the attention of the public health team. We have briefings from the CHO, the deputy CHO and the public health team in relation to all cases. We have a map that has been published in the media that shows source cases and outbreaks and where those cases can be traced back to. In relation to the cases that were transmitted through casual contact, fleeting contact, stranger-to- stranger contact—whichever terminology you want to use—there have been more than eight cases of that during these experiences of the outbreaks. I acknowledge that two of those fortunately have become false positives, but the health advice did not change as a result of those positives becoming negatives. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:21): Thank you, Attorney. You have just said that you—you and your colleagues in that small selective cabinet of eight—meet on a daily basis, so did the chief health officer provide an update to you against or advise you against a statewide lockdown, knowing that those positives were found to be untrue? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:22): Ms Crozier, I can confirm that in my time in the Coordinating Ministers Council, and indeed reports from the Crisis Council of Cabinet last year, we are a government that follow the public health advice. These restrictions are based on public health advice, and we will continue to follow the public health advice, as given by the public health team. There has certainly been no advice provided that we should not be in lockdown at any of those meetings, as— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms SYMES: I have told you the status of cases. We go through every individual new case every time there is a new one. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1968 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Mr Grimley: On a point of order, President, before I begin, are we are able to get the speakers turned up for us in the bleachers down here? It is just a bit hard to hear. I know that we are getting a bit old, but it is a bit difficult to hear, if that is okay. I can hear that one coming out slightly, but I do not think those ones are working. The PRESIDENT: Thanks, Mr Grimley, for your point of order. We will look into it. WORKCOVER CLAIMS MANAGEMENT Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:23): My question is to the Minister for Workplace Safety, and it relates to the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The act often requires injured workers to hire legal representation and regularly does not operate in the employee’s favour. For instance, for those who want to access a new, more effective treatment option to improve their illness or injury, the worker or their legal team has to provide strong clinical evidence that this treatment will actually treat their physical or mental injuries. To my disbelief, and despite the Department of Veterans Affairs having their own dog program for post-traumatic stress injury sufferers, this includes specially trained psychiatric assistance dogs to support PTSI. Minister, has any consideration been given to changing the definition of a medical service or a personal and household service in the workplace injury act to include newer, more effective medicines and treatment options for injured employees? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:24): I thank Mr Grimley for his question and for his interest in these important issues in relation to supporting injured workers. Providing that fair compensation and support is an absolute priority for our government, and that is why we recently passed legislation in this place, including provisional payments reform and arbitration reform, to make that journey for an injured worker through the sometimes complex WorkSafe WorkCover system as easy as it can be. Obviously every compensation claim needs to be taken seriously, and I am aware that WorkSafe agents can consider paying the reasonable costs of new and emerging treatments and services in some circumstances. WorkSafe has a policy, which is the non-established, new or emerging treatments and services policy, on this issue to help guide agents and injured workers in terms of what guidelines and what services might be available to them and what reasonable costs can be claimed in respect to some of those new or emerging services and treatments. The government continue to monitor the trends in claims and services, and we are always open to considering how we can make the system better to support injured workers. WorkSafe do regularly engage with stakeholders about these issues, and through a variety of their existing stakeholder consultation bodies I am sure that improvements of this type can be looked at. Obviously individual decisions on WorkCover claims are not made by me as the minister; WorkSafe and its agents make those decisions. I am aware that there are specific requirements and expectations of agents in terms of the timing of responses to claims for compensation, and I am advised that WorkSafe requests for the funding of psychiatric assistance dogs for injured workers with diagnosed PTSD have been made via its policy that relates to non-established, new or emerging treatments and services that I have mentioned. But I am obviously very happy to see what other information I might be able to provide the member in relation to this question. Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:26): Thanks, Minister. I look forward to that information and hopefully some improvements. You may recall me speaking about the late Ron Fenton, who had Yogi as his support dog. Ron appealed a WorkCover case where it was determined that Yogi was not to be covered by WorkCover due to not being an approved treatment option for PTSI. Victoria Police’s insurer, Gallagher Bassett, has a lot to answer for regarding this, but the workplace injury act also did not do Ron any favours. When Ron won his claim, it was hailed as a victory and a precedent. Unfortunately it has not created a precedent, with WorkCover continually trying to rule that psychiatric assistance dogs are not a suitable treatment option, despite mounting evidence proving otherwise. According to WorkSafe’s own website, primary mental injury claims take on average 27 days to QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1969 determine, and this is in contrast to just seven days for physical injury claims. Minister, I would like to know why it takes reportedly around nine months for those accessing WorkCover for psychiatric assistance dogs to access compensation. Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:27): As I indicated in my previous answer, the advice that I have from WorkSafe is that there have been requests for funding for assistance dogs approved under the internal policy for emerging treatments and services, but as I have already indicated to the member, I am very happy to see what other information I might be able to provide that will be of assistance to him. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: DISABILITY ADVICE AND RESPONSE TEAM Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:28): I rise to update the house on our government’s support to establish the disability advice and response team, which is a newly funded initiative announced in this year’s budget. Close to 40 per cent of young people in the youth justice system have cognitive difficulties. However, only 12 per cent of this group are accessing appropriate disability services prior to their first court appearance. In response to this and to improve outcomes for this vulnerable cohort we have committed $3.9 million over the next five years. This will enable a full-time team to support young people with a disability who have matters before the Children’s Court. The disability advice and response team will facilitate on-the-spot advice to the Children’s Court prior to and during hearings, assisting with screening for a disability and helping to identify pathways to access targeted services. This team will include an Aboriginal team member position with a focus on the Children’s Koori Court and to improve outcomes for Koori children in a range of proceedings, and it will mean that we can deliver culturally safe disability screening. These services will focus on assisting young people with intellectual disabilities, acquired brain injuries, autism spectrum disorder and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, which are all too common in our justice settings. Through early intervention we know that we can help divert vulnerable young people from the justice system and ultimately reduce the over-representation of children with cognitive impairments in our system. Investment in support services will address the root causes of offending by these young people through enabling access to appropriate targeted support. By investing in up-front services we are also helping to reduce the burden on the Children’s Court. There will be fewer adjournments, and cases will be heard quicker as young people can receive this tailored advice. Although a relatively small investment, it is yet another example of how we are providing comprehensive support to our courts and indeed tackling the court backlog. COVID-19 Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:29): My question again is for the Minister for Small Business. Minister, you were quoted in the Sunday Herald Sun saying:

Our small businesses have paid a high price keeping the community safe … And, Minister, I agree with you. Our small businesses have borne the brunt of the Andrews Labor government’s lockdowns. Minister, the Andrews Labor government also released a package of business support measures in recent days, but sole traders who are not registered for GST received nothing whatsoever. I therefore ask: why have you harshly left out our smallest and most vulnerable businesses? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:30): I thank Mr Davis for this question. It is true that many of our small businesses have borne a very, very heavy burden and continue to do so, and the point—if Mr Davis was interested in the second part of that quote—was really that if people want to support their local small business, in addition to ordering the takeaway or shopping online from them, then having a vaccine is an incredibly important thing if people are eligible. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1970 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

But Mr Davis asked a really important question about the eligibility for the business support programs that the government has been running not just now but throughout the course of the pandemic. We have, if I recall, 23 business support programs that have operated through the period since March last year, and there are many that are still operating. I am just looking for the exact number. There are about nine that are still operating. But Mr Davis’s question is about eligibility, and each and every one of those businesses that are not registered for GST have not been eligible, so they have not been eligible for sole trader support, business support or the business costs assistance program. What is different this time and I think explains very much the particular distress and hardship that people in this situation are experiencing is the absence of JobKeeper. We have not changed the eligibility, but the income support available to these people has changed, and that is why people are experiencing particular distress. The advice that my department has received from the federal government, from the federal department, is that they will be eligible for the recently announced federal government support. I think it is important also for Mr Davis to understand—and I know there is a lot of interest on this particular subject in the community—that the Victorian government has no way of distinguishing between trading businesses and non-trading businesses with ABNs, and that is a fact. The federal government has access to information about income that the state government does not. So, Mr Davis, the program is available to sole traders but it is not available, as other programs have not been, for those who are not registered for GST and therefore have turnover less than $75 000. That is not a change; that is the entirely consistent way in which we have been making a distinction between a business that is earning and trading and one that is not. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:33): My supplementary question to the minister is: in releasing a business package of support for the fourth lockdown, Martin Pakula dismissed sole traders as ‘operating at a very low level’ and ‘home-based business services’. Minister, do you accept that these comments by Martin Pakula regarding sole traders are wrong, dismissive and insensitive, and will you counsel him or insist he apologises? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:34): Mr Davis routinely comes in here and asserts statements of other people to be true. I am unaware of the comments that he has made. I also think he is conflating sole traders with people that are not registered for GST, and I am not sure if he is deliberately or accidentally trying to conflate these things. Members interjecting. Ms PULFORD: Absolutely a lot of them are, and it was our view that the federal government ought to reinstate income support, and they have. Dragged kicking and screaming, I might add, they did address the urgent need for income support, and the advice the federal government give us is that these people will be eligible. We will wait and see—the guidelines, I believe, are due to be published today—but the Victorian government does not have available to it the tools to make a distinction between someone with an ABN that is earning and someone with an ABN that is not. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:35): I move:

That the minister’s answer be taken into account on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. COVID-19 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:35): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Housing. Minister, I want to acknowledge the hard work and difficult decisions being made in our efforts to contain the latest outbreak of COVID and thank everyone working on the front lines. Given the locations of the current outbreak, my colleagues and I are concerned to know if QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1971 residents in affected public housing are getting the support and information they need. While it was good to see improvements to the vaccine clinic opening times at one of the sites, we are hearing concerning reports that some residents are still not receiving enough translated materials and that the vaccine clinic is hard to locate without adequate signage. Minister, can you please provide any update that you might have on increased support for public housing residents during the period of lockdown? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:36): I thank Dr Ratnam for her question. I will certainly seek a response from the Minister for Housing, but just in terms of your question, it might also be across a number of other portfolios, including multicultural affairs and health. But I will certainly seek a response from the Minister for Housing to see what is available, and I am sure he will do that within the time frame required. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (12:36): Thank you, Minister, for following that question up, and perhaps this one is also one to take on notice. Would the minister be able to inform the house as to which languages COVID information, specifically vaccine information, has been translated into and how it is being distributed to public housing residents in high-rise towers? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:37): Again, Dr Ratnam, I will pass the question on to the Minister for Housing, but it might be that there is some information to be gathered from a number of different areas. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: RECONNECT PROGRAM Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:37): Today I would like to focus on the important Reconnect program, which the Andrews Labor government established in 2015 to support disadvantaged Victorians to gain access to education, training and skills. Since that time thousands of Victorians have participated in the Reconnect program, and many have gone on to fulfilling careers in areas such as horticulture, community services and education support. Reconnect offers wraparound support to address barriers that impact on— Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Members, thank you! Ms TIERNEY: Reconnect offers wraparound support to address barriers that impact on the individual’s capacity to achieve their goals, and I am proud to say that this program is working. Reconnect has a holistic approach which focuses on the individual. The $47 million funding commitment to extend the Reconnect program for a further four years has been welcomed by all. With the reinvestment in Reconnect we will now support more Victorians, each and every one of them, to gain access to these important services which are tailored to address their needs and change lives. It is now delivered across 70 Victorian local government areas by TAFEs, Learn Locals and community support services. To support the transition to education and training, Reconnect provides additional support in counselling and mentoring, housing and accommodation referrals, and mental health support referrals. These services support individuals to further develop their foundation and employability skills and support them on a pathway to further training and education, and employment. It will empower them to participate in training and education as well as expand their community and social engagement opportunities. We are continuing to build our outreach activities to engage with people experiencing disadvantage to enable them to transition into an inclusive and accessible learning environment. This government is committed to supporting our most disadvantaged and vulnerable Victorians to gain access to high- quality education and training, and employment pathways. We are dedicated to working with every Victorian to build a positive future. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 1972 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The PRESIDENT: I noticed the time ran out, but interjections that have been happening in the house stopped the minister for a few seconds, and that is why I allowed a few seconds extra. Ms Crozier: On a point of order, President, in relation to the interjections, the Leader of the Government did make an unparliamentary interjection, calling the opposition ‘such turds’. I ask you to ask her to withdraw the comments. The PRESIDENT: Well, I did not hear it. Ms Crozier: I would like to understand if the Leader of the Government actually said it. The PRESIDENT: I have not ruled on your point of order yet. I ask the Leader of the Government if she made such a comment or if she is aware of what Ms Crozier— Ms Symes: I admit to using unparliamentary language, and I withdraw. The PRESIDENT: All fixed. Thank you. SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:41): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. In Victoria’s fourth lockdown Gippsland has had not one active COVID case nor any exposure sites, yet small businesses, like the owners of 12 dance studios I met with yesterday, are shut and are losing money hand over fist. Minister, what is and will you release the health advice behind the government’s decision to allow 10 children or adults to attend creative arts rehearsals while banning 10 children from attending a dance class? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:41): I thank Ms Bath for her question and for her advocacy on behalf of people running dance classes in her electorate of Eastern Victoria. Because such businesses are impacted and continue to be impacted in the second week, when many are able to reopen and trade in regional Victoria, they are eligible for the secondary part of the payment that I referred to in my ministers statement. I would encourage Ms Bath to make sure that those businesses are aware of the opportunity to apply for that. In relation to public health advice, I am not the minister responsible for that, and so I would suggest Ms Bath direct that question to the Leader of the Government, who represents the Minister for Health in this place. Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:42): Minister, to your comment about compensation, one business owner, and her name is Sallie Gibson, runs a successful baby and child development program called Gymbaroo in Traralgon. Under the current restrictions Sallie is unable to open, yet she is only eligible for compensation for last week’s lockdown. She has investigated this. Why are you restricting compensation to Sallie and others like her when her business still cannot open? Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:43): I thank Ms Bath for her supplementary question. I did have a quick flashback to some wonderful, wonderful memories of Gymbaroo classes with my own babies a long time ago. It is a wonderful program, and I am sure her customers benefit from it enormously. Ms Gibson should be eligible for the second part of the payment, so if you would like to provide her details to me, I can have somebody from the department or from my office get in touch with her and make sure she understands that she is eligible for the second part. MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTING FACILITIES Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:44): My question is to the Minister for Health in the other place. Will the minister provide a breakdown of the $40.1 million contained in the 2021–22 and the 2022–23 budgets for medically supervised injecting rooms? In May the Reason Party announced that they wanted injecting centres in three other sites in addition to the current site in North Richmond QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1973 and a CBD site. The Acting Premier told reporters that the government did not support expanding the program beyond the second site, yet less than two weeks later we have a budget with these amounts— enormous amounts. It says a lot about the government’s priorities when they are spending more on injecting rooms than driving shorter hospital waiting lists and emergency room wait times. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:45): I thank Dr Cumming for her question. Dr Cumming: The question is this: will the minister provide a breakdown? Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, there is a bit in your question, and I am happy to seek some further advice in relation to the breakdown of funding over the estimates as you have articulated. I can confirm that the government does like to work cooperatively with all parties in this chamber, and we have a good relationship with most people, including the opposition when it comes to bipartisan policies. I can confirm that the Reason Party’s policy is not the government’s policy in relation to safe injecting rooms. I do take a bit of issue with your characterisation of investment and funding for safe injecting rooms, and perhaps I would encourage you to see if you can get a visit down to the one that is operating, because I can assure you that this is money well spent in relation to health and safety mitigation. As a member of the upper house committee that undertook the inquiry into that and as a country member it was an eye-opener going around North Richmond, and I would certainly encourage any member of this house— Members interjecting. Ms SYMES: I will certainly maintain my support for safe injecting rooms and the lives that they save. In relation to the cost across the estimates, Dr Cumming, I will seek a written response for you, but I do confirm that it is not to avail an expenditure on a Reason Party election policy. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:46): Thank you, Attorney, for your answer. How dare you say that I would not have attended and do not understand. Can the minister please explain why more injecting rooms are planned when the issues with the North Richmond site have not been resolved? There have been around 50 lethal overdoses in the room and the surrounding area. That is a 1000 per cent increase. Ambulance attendance for drugs increased by 15 per cent in the first year. It is double any other local government area; this is Richmond. Injecting on the streets has not decreased, syringes are being collected at a rate of over 111 000 a year in that surrounding area. That is nearly double the 60 000 needles collected in the whole of Yarra as part of the justification for this room. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:47): Dr Cumming, I did not mean to cause you offence. I merely suggested that you might want to seek an audience with the group that— Dr Cumming interjected. Ms SYMES: I actually put on record that as a member of an upper house inquiry that looked into it I did not know until I went down there exactly what they do, so I would encourage particularly those that are opposed to this policy just to have a look for themselves. I am more than happy to pass on your supplementary question to the Minister for Health. However, Dr Cumming, I think that what you will receive in response are a lot of facts that disprove the facts and figures that you put on record. Having said that, I am not the Minister for Health, and I do not want to provide any false information. But I do anticipate that the information that will come back to you will refute many of those assertions. Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: We ask questions, we ask supplementaries and then we do not wait for the answers. We interject, and we keep interjecting. Members, please, when you ask a question or you ask a supplementary, you have to allow the minister to answer your question or your supplementary. CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1974 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

MINISTERS STATEMENTS: EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:49): I rise to update the house on important investments in this year’s budget to back in Victoria’s early childhood workforce. Before I do so, I wish to place on record my appreciation for all that our early childhood teachers and educators are doing. They do an incredible job at the best of times, but in these difficult times they are really going above and beyond. We understand the importance of backing our early childhood workforce, which is why in the 2021–22 Victorian budget we are delivering $32.4 million over four years on initiatives to support them. This includes supporting graduate teachers in their first years of teaching with mentoring, coaching and networking opportunities and supporting experienced teachers in mentoring and leadership roles. We will provide financial incentives for teachers to take up jobs in hard-to-staff locations, including relocation grants, and support people to return to early childhood teaching with financial incentives and professional development opportunities, including those from interstate. This is on top of our existing teachers scholarships and free TAFE courses and the recent negotiation of two benchmark agreements which see significant improvements to pay and conditions. With 6000 new early learning jobs being created over this decade of reform, we want to ensure early childhood education is an attractive and sustainable career, one that we value as an important profession in our community. It is all part of the $400.7 million early childhood package in this year’s budget, building on investments from the Labor government over the past six years, with $2.9 billion invested in early childhood to ensure every child is ready for school and ready for life. WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (12:51): Regarding questions today: Mr Davis to Ms Pulford, one day for the question; Dr Ratnam to housing, Ms Stitt, two days, question and supplementary; and Dr Cumming, two days for the question and supplementary. Mr O’Donohue: On a point of order, President, two sitting weeks ago I asked a question to the Leader of the Government in relation to the family violence incident in relation to a government staffer. In the last sitting week I took a point of order about the fact that the minister, the Leader of the Government, had not provided a response. I note on that point of order, President, you said there was nothing you could do, but I take this point of order to express my disappointment to the Leader of the Government, given that she had given an undertaking to the house that that answer either had been provided or would be provided and here we are, another sitting week on, and that answer has not been provided. It is a very important question. I know it is a very sensitive issue, but I would ask the Leader of the Government to provide the answer to that question. Whilst there may not be a standing order which compels her, I think in good faith she should give an answer to that question. Ms Symes: Just for the ease of the house, Mr O’Donohue, I followed up on that and was shown an email that was sent to your inbox. But if it has gone to your junk or somewhere, I will furnish it again. Constituency questions SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:53): ‘Soaring numbers of children and teenagers are self-harming, battling suicidal thoughts and suffering eating disorders as the long-term trauma of the pandemic and last year’s marathon lockdown continues to hit young Victorians’. This is a quote from an article in the Australian on the weekend. Very sobering figures are contained in a mental health report. I have had GPs, I have had surgeons, I have had psychologists, I have had parents, I have had teachers contact my office. They are so concerned regarding what is going on with the impacts of these lockdowns that are causing so much distress and mental health concerns to children. I have had GPs within my electorate ringing me in fact saying, ‘We need to understand what is in this report. Can you get it?’. So I am asking, on behalf of all of those people and particularly those people that have CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1975 contacted my office in recent days since this article was published, for the government to please release the report. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (12:54): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Equality, Minister for Health and Minister for Ambulance Services, the Honourable Martin Foley. My question relates to the minister’s portfolio responsibilities for health. Twenty-eight Victorian hospitals and health services will receive a share of $30 million under a new clinical technology refresh program to upgrade their existing IT infrastructure. Hospitals across Melbourne will share $21.67 million of the funds, while $8.32 million is allocated to regional and rural health services in Victoria. My question to the minister is: can the minister update me on how the clinical technology refresh program benefits the hospitals and the residents of the Western Metropolitan Region? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (12:54): My question is for the Minister for Regional Development. Moorabool Shire Council was looking forward to funding for stage 1 of the Moorabool Aquatic and Recreation Centre, or MARC, in the new 2021–22 budget. Unfortunately, to my knowledge this shovel-ready project did not get a cent to break ground on the indoor sports stadium. This is greatly disappointing for the Moorabool and Bacchus Marsh communities, which are set to double in population in the next 20 years. Bacchus Marsh Leisure Centre is the only indoor facility in the local government area and is already at capacity. Starting this project soon would have stimulated the local economy through the construction process, and it would also have enabled the facility to be ready for kids sports and activities post COVID. My question is: Minister, what opportunities for funding for stage 1 of the MARC are coming up for the Moorabool and Bacchus Marsh community to get this project funded? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (12:55): My constituency question is to the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and it relates to hoon behaviour taking place in the Mount Dandenong area. I refer to a newspaper clip by Ms Taylah Eastwell in the local paper, the Ranges Trader, which—and I quote—says:

Fed up with trying to sleep to the sound of burnouts and boom boxes, neighbours from village towns on Mt Dandenong are chipping in to cover the costs of a private security firm to patrol the area at night. The article goes on to quote the security company owner, who said that:

… the “hoons” know the residents have had enough, sometimes acting out purposely in an attempt to get a response. “They toot their horns on purpose, rev their engines going up and down residential streets just to disturb people, they’ll do … anything they can do to get a response and they know that the signs and what we’re doing is aimed at them. So the question I have for the police minister is: will the police minister work with the Chief Commissioner of Police to ensure there are sufficient resources for local police on Mount Dandenong to stop these terrible hoon behaviours having a huge impact on the local community? SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:56): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Small Business, the Honourable Jaala Pulford, MP. Victorians have been rallying together during this recent outbreak of COVID-19 to keep the community safe. However, in order to save lives Victorians are making sacrifices across the state, and we particularly recognise the real cost of this action to our businesses. For this reason, the Victorian government has added to the $250.7 million support package announced at the beginning of June with a new allocation of up to $209.3 million, CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 1976 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 which will flow to small and medium-sized businesses, taking the total support package to $460 million. This includes the Licensed Hospitality Venue Fund, which will provide grants for eligible licensed hospitality venues impacted by the recent restrictions in Victoria. Grants of $3500 for businesses with their premises in regional Victoria and $7000 for businesses with premises in metropolitan Melbourne will be available to eligible liquor licensees operating in restaurants or hotels— The PRESIDENT: Dr Kieu, time. Dr KIEU: My question for the minister is: can the minister provide me with an update on how constituents that operate businesses in South Eastern Metropolitan can apply for this program? The PRESIDENT: I do not know what we are doing in here. It is very important for everyone to watch the clock, whether it is a question or an answer or a constituency question—whatever the reason is. I will allow a few seconds, but please, members, watch the clock. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:58): My question is to the Minister for Small Business from a resident in Keilor Downs. Will the government rethink its support for those in need, particularly sole traders? The resident’s husband is a sole trader. His business is not registered for GST because it is not legally required to be. However, he cannot operate his business of sports coaching during the lockdown period. This means that they are losing income without compensation. Every lockdown so far has been the same. The only action that they were able to take was enrolling in JobKeeper, which has ended. The grants made available by Business Victoria last week once again require business owners to meet unrealistic eligibility criteria. This is very difficult for sole traders in particular, Minister. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:59): My question is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Members will be aware of my continued advocacy for the completion and release of the business case for the Shepparton bypass project. The business case was due for completion in 2019, and the minister has used every excuse imaginable for its delay and the secrecy of its contents. After a delay of over 12 months the completed business case has finally been forwarded to the federal government, but marked cabinet-in-confidence by the Andrews Labor government. This prevented the commonwealth from releasing the document to the public, and Jacinta Allan still refuses to make the business case public. The Goulburn Valley community have waited decades for this project and deserve to know the details of the cost and scope of the project. Considering it is her business case, will the minister stop playing political games and release the business case to the public to provide clarity and certainty regarding the Shepparton bypass project? NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (13:00): My constituency question is for the Minister for Planning. I have had several angry constituents contact my office after seeing reports in the media that the government-commissioned report on the North East Link has revealed the builders of the project underestimated the scale of tree loss by as much as 80 per cent. It would seem, even before the project’s major construction starts later this year, builder CPB Contractors have been caught bypassing the new benchmarks that were set following an extensive environmental assessment by severely underestimating the scale of tree loss. This misreporting is estimated to be hundreds of square metres of lost trees, a lot more than was originally approved by the minister. What actions will the minister be taking to ensure that tree loss is no greater than was originally proposed on the North East Link Project? CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1977

NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (13:01): My constituency question today is for the Minister for Health. Minister, the drug-injecting room needs to be in a dedicated health precinct. If we are going to do this, it is about time we started doing it right. It has been over three years since the state government announced it was going to operate an injecting room in the high-density residential area of North Richmond. It has been an abject failure for residents, an abject failure for local business, for children and for the North Richmond primary school. I have spoken to traders and residents in Richmond and Carlton and along Flinders Street, and everyone agrees that while saving lives should be a priority, the choice to put this in a high-density area with lots of foot traffic and with no dedicated allied health or security services is just flat-out stupid. So, Minister, I ask on behalf of my constituents: will the state government remove the facility in North Richmond and immediately halt any plans to place another one at Flinders Street or the Queen Victoria Market and instead locate the injecting room with a dedicated police presence and dedicated security with other allied health services in one of Melbourne’s health precincts? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (13:02): My constituency question is to the Treasurer. From Werribee to Williamstown, from Sunbury to Seddon, sole traders have been hit hard by Labor’s lockdown 4. Quite staggeringly, sole traders across Melbourne’s west are ineligible for government support if they are not registered for GST or earn less than $70 000 per annum. Those who need it most are denied help. Treasurer, is this just a way of avoiding payments to a most needy section of the business community in Melbourne’s west? Treasurer, what action will you take to ensure small sole traders in my region receive urgent government support, and when can we expect to see that money in the hands of those sole traders who need it? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (13:03): My constituency question is for the Minister for Small Business, and it relates to a small business owner, Owen Dixon. He is applying for the business costs grants program, round 2. As a producer of stock for the floral market his business has been totally smashed in lockdown 4, losing 80 per cent of his sales in the past two weeks. Unable to supply flowers to the retail market and unable to store his perishable stock, he is highly stressed. His ATO industry code is ‘outdoor floriculture producer’. However, this category is completely absent from the grants program that you are offering, and therefore he will not be able to be successful. So my question is: will the minister first of all fix the glaring errors that are in this grants program, and will she ensure that my constituent is successful in his grant application after losing 80 per cent of his sales in the past two weeks? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13:04): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. In the north-west corner of our state is the city of Mildura, a large population centre a very long way from Melbourne both physically and apparently from your thoughts. Mildura does not have a mass vaccination hub. A city of more than 50 000 people and its wider community is not worth protecting in this government’s eyes. While the AstraZeneca vaccine has been available through smaller outlets, under-50s have been unable to get vaccinated as obtaining Pfizer has been impossible. Residents were expected to travel to Bendigo, a 4½ hour drive away. Finally it has been announced that Mildura is to get a sub-hub and will offer Pfizer to under-50s from 14 June. Local media has described the work to get this hub as ‘brokering a deal’ and ‘a great team effort’ fighting for the centre. Can the minister tell us why a large centre like Mildura had to fight so hard to get a decent vaccination facility? It was worth locking them down but not worth vaccinating them. COMMITTEES 1978 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (13:05): My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in her capacity as the responsible minister for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. The Cape Otway lighthouse has been run incredibly well for the last 24 years by its current lessees, who have maintained and improved the site and provided an amazing and memorable visitor experience to literally millions of visitors over that time. It is a huge attraction, bringing people from across Victoria, Australia and internationally, and with 26 full-time staff is an important local employer. DELWP’s failure to negotiate a new long-term lease now means the heartbroken operators have no choice but to hand back the keys on 30 June this year. My question for the minister is: why have you failed to do everything possible to enable a viable long-term lease offer? What can you do to now avoid this terrible loss? EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:06): My question is for the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events in the other place. Why hasn’t the government moved ahead with funding in the recent budget for the Box Hill City Oval redevelopment project? Now, this is a very important local project. The oval houses a fantastic VFLW team, a VFL team and a wonderful local cricket club, the mighty Mustangs. There is a really strong master plan in place, with a new pavilion, training facilities and change room facilities as well. In fact, if the plan goes ahead, it is foreseen that every year 250 000 local residents will use the precincts. The government has given the project its stamp of approval and has come out in support of it, and yet there was no funding in the recent budget for this to move ahead. My question to the minister for sport is: why not, and when will we see funding for this important project? SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (13:07): My question is for the Attorney-General. It relates to fines that are being imposed by Fines Victoria in relation to COVID activities and related orders, and in particular I draw your attention to Yes Fitness on Nepean Highway in Gardenvale, a very successful and important local gym. It is my view that people should comply with the law and comply with orders of the chief health officer and others, and the separate question also is whether the facts of this matter are indeed proven, but with the $10 084.40 fine imposed on Yes Fitness it does seem to me that this is a very extreme fine, and I am asking the Attorney to review the level of these fines. Is this appropriate in the broader context of fines? It seems to me to be harsh. Committees SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 7 Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (13:08): Pursuant to section 35 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 2003, I lay on the table Alert Digest No.7 of 2021 from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, including appendices. I move:

That the report be published. Motion agreed to. Papers PAPERS Tabled by Clerk: Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978—Minister’s Order of 9 May 2021 giving approval to the granting of a licence at Alexandra Gardens Reserve. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1979

Planning and Environment Act 1987—Notices of Approval of the following amendments to planning schemes— Bayside Planning Scheme—Amendment C181. Benalla Planning Scheme—Amendment C33. Casey Planning Scheme—Amendment C283. Central Goldfields Planning Scheme—Amendment C28. Corangamite Planning Scheme—Amendment C54. Darebin Planning Scheme—Amendment C185. Gannawarra Planning Scheme—Amendment C44. Glenelg Planning Scheme—Amendment C99. Latrobe Planning Scheme—Amendments C122 and C128. Melton Planning Scheme—Amendment C198. Moonee Valley Planning Scheme—Amendment C220. Surf Coast Planning Scheme—Amendment C135. Victoria Planning Provisions—Amendment VC189. West Wimmera Planning Scheme—Amendment C36. Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme—Amendment C187. Statutory Rules under the following Acts of Parliament— Dangerous Goods Act 1985—No. 49. Environment Protection Act 2017—Nos. 47 and 48. Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986—No. 50. Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008—No. 51. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994— Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rule Nos. 44, 49 and 51. Legislative instrument and related documents under section 16B in respect of Code of Conduct for Professional Engineers of 26 May 2021, under the Professional Engineers Registration Act 2019. Business of the house NOTICES Notices of motion given. Notices of intention to make a statement given. GENERAL BUSINESS Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13:16): I move, by leave:

That precedence be given to the following general business on Wednesday, 9 June 2021: (1) order of the day 3, resumption of debate on the second reading of the Emergency Powers Safeguards Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; (2) notice of motion 574 standing in the name of Mr Davis revoking Hume planning scheme amendment C248; (3) the notice of motion given this day by Mr Davis on the release of health advice that has led to the COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) notice of motion 532 standing in the name of Mr Hayes on foreign property investors and money laundering in real estate; (5) notice of motion 543 standing in the name of Mr Hayes on protecting Melbourne’s green wedges; and COMMITTEES 1980 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

(6) notice of motion 552 standing in the name of Mr Grimley referring a matter to the Procedure Committee relating to photography in the chamber. Motion agreed to. Committees ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Reporting dates Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:17): I move, by leave:

That the resolutions of the Council of 30 October 2019 and 17 March 2021 and the resolution of the committee of 1 June 2020 requiring the Environment and Planning Committee to inquire into, consider and report by 30 September 2021 on the decline of Victoria’s ecosystems and measures to restore habitats and populations of threatened and endangered species be amended so as to now require the committee to present its report by 31 October 2021. Motion agreed to. Members statements COVID-19 Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (13:18): Like Ms Crozier, I want to refer to an article in the Weekend Australian on 5 June, ‘Lockdown trauma takes toll on teens’, written by Damon Johnston, the Victorian editor, because it resonated with me. In the article Mr Johnston refers to data about the increase in emergency department presentations for children and teenagers aged up to 17, the increase in self-harm by children and, quoting from the article:

The most serious cases, where teenagers have needed resuscitation and emergency care, jumped 44.9 per cent … with the 2020 weekly average of 19.8 per cent rising to 28.7 per cent in 2021. There is a mental health crisis in Victoria. Children are feeling isolated and alone, and the lockdown is making a terrible situation even worse. Again I call on the Victorian government to release the health advice upon which it is relying and to say whether consequential causal factors from the lockdown are being considered as part of the health advice. What balancing is taking place between the consequences of the lockdown in stopping the spread of COVID-19 and the other health crises that are being created as a result, including the mental health crisis that is affecting so many Victorians, particularly Victorian young people? As I say, it is consistent with advice I am receiving from parents, students and teachers across the Eastern Victoria Region. MELBOURNE CITY REVITALISATION FUND Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (13:19): The city has done it tough during the global coronavirus pandemic. The City of Melbourne is the events and culture capital of Melbourne, and revitalising and rejuvenating Melbourne will be a key part of our economic recovery. That is why I am proud to see the investments that this Labor government is making into our CBD—investments that support the small businesses that call our city home, investments that bring visitors and tourists to our great city, investments that fund the arts and culture that our city is so well known and loved for. This government has committed $100 million to the Melbourne City Revitalisation Fund, which will be matched dollar for dollar by the City of Melbourne. This will finance CBD arts and cultural events and support CBD small businesses to recover and thrive as more Victorians return to the city to work, watch sports and enjoy our world-class cafes and restaurants. I have talked to many business owners in the CBD and to those in the Melbourne City Council, and I have heard loud and clear how important this money is to them. This Labor government has responded swiftly to the impacts of the global coronavirus pandemic on our CBD and on our businesses that rely on tourism and city foot traffic. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1981

These investments will continue to ensure that our CBD returns stronger than ever, backing the buzz of our cafes, restaurants and bars and the people who make a living from them. COVID-19 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13:21): Oops, you did it again. Victoria is suffering through its fourth lockdown. We have been here enough times that we are all aware of the devastation these snap closures cause to our state. Other Australian states have had outbreaks but have contained them without statewide lockdowns. Regional Victoria was again forced to shut down, and for no reason. We have a case study in every town on the New South Wales border. On the Victorian side there were stay-at-home directions, business closures and mask requirements. On the New South Wales side there was liberty. There were no border checkpoints, just half a city in lockdown and the other half free to live as usual. So why didn’t we see outbreaks in Albury, Mulwala, Tocumwal, Moama or Barham? Because the regional lockdowns were not necessary. Many people have noticed that we have an outbreak and then we lock down and then the outbreaks are contained. This does not prove that these lockdowns are necessary to contain outbreaks. But here is hard proof, for border towns at least, that this regional lockdown did not help. Much like The Simpsons bear patrol, the government can claim the regional lockdown worked because there is no COVID in regional Victoria, but this is spurious reasoning. It is the same false reasoning that astrologers, charlatans and politicians use to trick their victims. Contact tracing, targeted quarantine and voluntary preventative measures have worked in other states, and these measures are effective. But in Victoria, despite our gold standard contact tracing, bureaucrats who pay no price for their decisions lock us all down because they can. It is lazy, and it shows only contempt for regional Victoria. A statewide lockdown is a drastic measure that is explicitly rejected by the World Health Organization. We can and should contain outbreaks without shutting down the entire state. CAFE 3641 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (13:23): I would like to acknowledge a wonderful regional business, Cafe 3641 in Strathmerton, which unfortunately will close its doors to the public for the final time this Friday. Owned by Carolyn and Mick Ryan, Cafe 3641 has forged a reputation for its delicious food and exceptional service since it opened in February 2013. Located on the Murray Valley Highway, Cafe 3641 began life as a small country cafe and over the years grew to become a high- class catering and function-hosting business, employing up to 20 locals at any one time. Through the dedication and quality service of Carolyn and her staff, Cafe 3641 has been involved in many significant events in the local community, catering for engagements, weddings, baby showers and birthdays, while also running the day-to-day cafe operation. The cafe’s reputation for high tea is unsurpassed in the region, and such events were always booked out as customers travelled from far and wide to experience the delicious food on offer. As well as being a successful businesswoman, Carolyn has a passion for the Strathmerton community. I first met her when she first contacted me regarding the need to lower the speed limit on the Murray Valley Highway through the town. Carolyn was determined to make her community safer by getting the speed limit lowered to 60 kilometres and never wavered on her advocacy until the speed limit change was achieved. Like all Victorian small businesses, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on Carolyn and Cafe 3641. While she would like to have kept the business running, sadly it closes to the public this Friday. I wish Carolyn and her family all the very best for the future. NORTH EAST LINK PROJECT TREE REMOVAL Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (13:24): For nearly two years I have been raising concerns about the amount of trees being removed by the North East Link Project—not only the North East Link Project but all of the government’s major transport projects across Victoria: 26 000 trees removed for the North East Link, 3000 trees for the Western Freeway diversion, 500 trees at the Blackburn MEMBERS STATEMENTS 1982 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 railway corridor, 358 trees for the Toorak Road rail bypass, 242 trees for the Eltham roundabout and 100 trees next to Moreland station to name a few. Now we find out the government has miscalculated the amount of trees removed for the North East Link by 80 per cent and that contractors are fudging the books by misreporting: 350 square metres of trees lost in the blink of an eye. This all follows nine weeks of public hearings designed to reduce the environmental impact and an extensive environment effects statement, where we were told this project would have excellent environmental outcomes. So in my estimates we are now up to 46 800 trees removed just for the North East Link alone. That is over 60 000 trees lost to road and rail projects alone. It is a complete disgrace and makes a mockery of the EES process. It is just not acceptable for the government to keep turning a blind eye to environmental destruction. It is time for the minister to put the environment at the forefront of all major projects without exception. COVID-19 Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (13:26): It is hard to believe that this government has no idea of how much pain it is causing. Comments by ministers in the Andrews government give the strong indication that they regard this latest lockdown as a minor inconvenience to Victorians. They appear to have no idea what lockdown 1, lockdown 2, lockdown 3 and now lockdown 4 have done to communities across the state. Can they really be so insensitive as to have no regard for the damage these lockdowns have caused to the point of promising more if Labor stuffs up again? How can senior members of the Andrews government have no comprehension of the devastation they have wrought upon small business men and women and their employees? How can they be so remote from reality that they do not understand the mental anguish suffered by children locked away from their classrooms and their friends, to say nothing of parents forced into quite often traumatic experiences of homeschooling? As for our beloved city of Melbourne, it may well never recover. It is simply heartbreaking. We had hoped this appalling government had learned from its many and costly mistakes. Clearly it has not, and Victorians—so many Victorians—are paying for it in blood, sweat and many, many tears. Lockdown must never happen again. COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE INDUSTRY Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (13:28): Today I rise to express my relief that the taxi and hire car industry will be eligible for the $5000 business grants as part of the government’s business costs assistance program. This is a huge win for this industry. The taxi and hire car industry has faced financial devastation throughout these lockdowns, and with JobKeeper no longer in place from the commonwealth government, support is even more critical. Since the onset of the latest lockdown I have been working hard to have the industry recognised in this support package. Providing this support is absolutely critical to maintaining the financial viability of taxi operators and hire car operators who provide an essential service to the community. This will ensure that wheelchair-accessible vehicles can stay on the road and will help regional communities keep their vital taxi services. This is why I came to this place: I have made my life’s work in the taxi and hire car industry, and for a long time we have seen our experiences, interests and opinions ignored. To see the struggles faced by these small businesses recognised in this support package speaks volumes. This is laying the foundation for a pathway forward for the industry as we come out of this pandemic. COVID-19 Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:29): Victoria is the only state to be in a fourth lockdown. This lockdown has caused immeasurable damage to so many Victorians. I cannot express enough the sincere disappointment that I have with the government’s lack of willingness to provide certainty to so many Victorians, their unwillingness to provide the health advice that they are basing the decisions to lock Victorians down on. This is absolutely critical if Victorians are going to have confidence in the system, confidence in the government in what they are doing through this crisis. As we all know, the pandemic is not over, but what we do not know is if the government will lock us down. I think it is pretty clear that they have every intention of locking us down, but the damage it is MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1983 doing to business, to mental health, to so many people—they are absolutely struggling. They are in despair. They cannot pay their bills. They cannot pay their staff. Their staff cannot pay their bills. They are struggling to put food on the table themselves. We see that with the numbers of food banks and community organisations that are reaching out to so many desperate people. This is a very serious situation. This fourth lockdown has caused so much damage to not only businesses but, as others have said, to schoolchildren and to young people, who are losing their sense of connectivity within the community and are really suffering huge mental health issues. MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITIES Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (13:31): We are lucky in Victoria to have such a rich and vibrant multicultural community. I was pleased to host a meeting with representatives from some of our largest culturally diverse communities last week to hear about the issues their communities are facing and the support they need in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. These organisations included the Boîte, Shakti Inc., APC Youth, Settlement Services International, Oorja Foundation, Bhutanese Community in Australia, South Asian Community Link Group-Australasia, South Asian Women Network and Allies, the Humanism Project, Community Network for Disadvantaged People Inc. and many distinguished community leaders. We heard from these communities about the resilience they have demonstrated and the generous support they have provided each other, from delivering meals to those in need to providing emotional support, particularly to those who became increasingly isolated throughout the year. We heard that isolation affected many of their elderly community members, who were less able to move their social activities online and continue to experience the prolonged effects of some of the restrictions we endure. There remains deep concern about international students who remain in Australia, who were abandoned by the federal government, with no income support. They also spoke about mental health and family violence remaining growing concerns for these communities, and many participants asked for help to advocate at all levels of government for more culturally specific mental health and family violence support services. They also wanted governments to work with them as partners in the continuing public health response. There was frustration that some public health materials were still not being translated into certain languages, and this made worse some concern and vaccine hesitancy that were emerging. At times like this it is important to remember that our multicultural communities are strong and resilient but need more support. LIVING STANDARDS Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (13:32): I speak today about the living standards in Victoria. Economic growth per person and household disposable income per head—key measures of people’s living standards—show how Victoria has gone from a stand-out performer to near bottom of the list. Victoria had the second-lowest household disposable income per person out of the eight states and territories in 2019–20. Household disposable income per person in Victoria was $48 107, more than $3200 below the national average. Twenty years ago Victoria had the third-highest household disposable income per head. Economic output per person has declined from 1 per cent above the national average in 1999–2000 to 9.6 per cent below the average in 2019–20. Victoria has been let down by successive Liberal and Labor governments for the past decade. The decline over the past decade has been covered up by record numbers of interstate and overseas migrants, including international students, propping up the economic growth, but Victoria lost 16 000 people in the last September quarter. (Time expired) Sitting suspended 1.34 pm until 2.08 pm. BILLS 1984 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Bills GAMBLING REGULATION AMENDMENT (WAGERING AND BETTING TAX) BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms STITT: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:08): I rise to make some brief remarks on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021. This is a bill which is a short bill, it is only six or eight clauses, and it has a single purpose, being to increase the rate of wagering and betting tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent with effect from 1 July this year. This is the point-of-consumption tax which applies to betting on racing activity. Predominantly it has the effect of ensuring a level playing field between corporate bookmakers and oncourse bookmakers, which had been an issue for a number of years in Victoria until this point-of-consumption tax was first introduced. Increasing the rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent will put Victoria in parity with New South Wales, and the additional 2 percentage points of revenue collected will be hypothecated to the racing industry. The bulk of the collection already is received to support the racing industry. There are some elements that go to the Anzac Day Proceeds Fund and the Hospital and Charities Fund, but the bulk of the revenue from this measure goes to support the racing industry and the additional 2 per cent will be fully hypothecated to the racing industry. As members of this house will know, a lot of work was done on this—I think at the end of the last Parliament or maybe at the beginning of this Parliament—to put in place this mechanism. As I said, this increase in the tax rate will ensure that we have a rate which is comparable with New South Wales and obviously the benefits of that flow through to the Victorian racing industry. It is estimated that some $83 million will flow to the industry as a consequence of this amendment, which is a significant sum to support the racing industry, which has obviously been a very important industry for the Victorian community, a very significant part of the Victorian economy, and one which I think is regarded very highly around the world. So the Liberal-Nationals coalition will not be opposing this bill. It is a sensible measure to harmonise the tax rate with New South Wales, it will hypothecate that benefit to the racing industry, and I expect this bill will have a speedy passage. Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June: ‘Gambling is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and the father of mischief’, according to George Washington. Still, it is a part of our society now and I dare say will be for many years. My party recognises that gambling problems cause great distress to many individuals, families and households. The financial loss and debt from gambling problems, in turn, create difficulties and pressures that can lead to mental health issues, social issues, domestic violence and suicide. There is a link between domestic violence and gambling: problem gamblers are 2.5 times more likely to be a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence. The gambling industry pervades many areas of our lives, profits from addiction, distress and violence, and has powerful economic influence. Australians spend more than $24 billion annually and the gambling industry has exceptional access and influence in politics and policy. I support any measures that minimise harm, protect consumers or reduce corruption. This bill does none of these things. In particular, I would have liked to see gambling ads banned from television and radio, particularly prior to and during the broadcasting of sporting events such as AFL, in the same way we banned cigarette advertising. It is deplorable that young children are able to quote the odds and line betting in the same way they can quote hard ball gets and score assists. We are actively breeding new generations of problem gamblers and all the social consequences that come with that. I support any measures to reduce the funding and influence on political parties. I support any measures to reduce the exposure of young people to gambling culture. This bill does neither of those things. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1985

I support measures that reduce the support to gambling industries, in particular gambling that exploits and harms animals. This bill does the reverse of that. This bill increases the tax on gambling but then returns it straight back to the racing industry. To take money from gambling and hand it straight back to an industry that is based on gambling is confusing policy. Surely I cannot be the only one who can see that this is akin to taking money from taxing cigarettes and giving it straight back to cigarette manufacturers, thereby increasing their ability to create more smokers and profit from the clear detrimental health effects of smoking. Problem gambling increased during COVID and now the industry that is the major player in that situation is to be told, ‘Good job, here’s tens of millions of dollars in handouts for your trouble’. In particular, I and my party recognise that non-human animals are significantly affected by gambling since some of the main activities on which people gamble involve training, racing, fighting and abuse of animals. In the last racing year, 31 horses were killed on Victorian racetracks, not to mention those that were sent to slaughterhouses as wastage. President, many businesses that have either done it tough or even closed during the pandemic could likely look on at this and be furious. The racing industry didn’t shut down, they continued to receive government/taxpayer support, and now they are set to receive even more. I note Dr Ratnam will be bringing amendments to this bill, and I am astonished that they need to be brought in the first place. The horseracing industry is enormously wealthy. It kills horses at an alarming rate, and I cannot possibly support this bill. I will be supporting Dr Ratnam’s amendments that prevent this new government revenue being returned as a further subsidy to the horseracing industry. Let the government keep this money and spend it on services that help all Victorians. A good start might be that it at least temporarily goes to casual and part-time employees who have had no income during lockdown because of the lack of federal government assistance to people in insecure work, who now face eviction or, if they can scrape together the rent, have to make a choice between paying the power bill or putting food on the table. To think that we are contemplating giving one of the wealthiest industries in the world 99 per cent of the proceeds of a new tax while the workers and their families who pay it struggle is surely a betrayal of Labor values. This revenue could have been a boon to social services and direct support to many on the edge, and I for one find it obscene to do otherwise. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June: I rise to speak today on the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021. My contribution will be brief. This point-of-consumption tax will increase from 8 per cent to 10 per cent of net wagering revenue from 1 July 2021 in line with NSW and it will still be less than other states. The new rate will enable the government to lift the amount of net wagering revenue that is returned to the Victorian racing industry from 1.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent. The balance of the revenue from the tax will continue to be distributed to the Hospitals and Charities Fund. Last year, racing continued throughout COVID. While we are currently in lockdown, racing has managed to continue. In fact, Racing Victoria still paid out record prize money in the 2020 financial year. Victorian racing still generated record turnover, in excess of $7 billion for the second financial year. The chief executive of Australian Trainers Association has said that ‘Racing Victoria are coming off a bumper 12 months, where racing was the beneficiary of really strong wagering growth and better than expected industry returns’. The increase in this tax that is passed through to the Victoria racing industry is expected to increase their net receipts by around $20 million a year from 2021–22. We are coming out of what is probably the biggest crisis this state has faced in decades. We have individuals suffering. BILLS 1986 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

We have small business suffering. We have the hospitality industry struggling to survive. We have the tourism and events industries on their knees. Yet here we are, giving $20 million extra to an industry that has managed to keep going through the last year. And not just keep going, but to post record turnover. And to use the industry’s own words, ‘a bumper 12 months, really strong wagering growth and better than expected industry returns’. Is this really the time for us to be handing more money to the racing industry? To give them an extra $20 million, when they are calling for an increase in prize money of $9.5 million? Bringing this is line with other states may be necessary, but I don’t think that this is really the time to be more than doubling the funds going back to an industry that isn’t suffering. I won’t be supporting the bill. Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June:

The bill and the tax framework The Victorian government is committed to ensuring all wagering operators pay their fair share of wagering and betting tax, whilst maintaining tax settings that support a competitive Victorian racing industry and wagering industry. The government’s point-of-consumption tax framework provides that level playing field, ensuring all wagering and betting providers pay their fair share. The POCT was also designed to ensure there was no adverse impact on Victoria’s racing industry, which is a major part of Victoria’s sporting landscape and cultural tradition, and to protect Victorian jobs. On 26 November 2020, the Treasurer tabled a review of the existing tax framework (the POCT review) in Parliament. The POCT review concluded that the government’s point-of-consumption tax was successful in achieving its objectives. • It found that the introduction of the POCT had not affected the growth in wagering operators’ net wagering revenue on VRI events. • The review also found that the $1 million tax-free threshold has reduced the regulatory burden of the POCT on small operators without significantly reducing tax revenue—getting the balance right. The review also found that increasing the POCT tax rate from 8 per cent to 10 per cent would be consistent with maintaining this effective balance. The proposed 10 per cent rate brings Victoria’s POCT rate into alignment with NSW and remains lower than the 15 per cent rate in other states. All of the additional revenue raised will flow to the Victorian Racing Industry. This will increase the gross POCT payment by around $47.6 million next year. The change will also increase the annual donation to the Anzac Day Proceeds Fund, which supports veterans. Based on legislative changes the government made previously, a portion of the POCT revenue from the month of April is donated to the Anzac Day Proceeds Fund. This payment approximates the revenue raised from wagering and betting activities that occur on Anzac Day (25 April). The increase in the tax rate to 10 per cent is expected to increase the annual donation to the Anzac Day Proceeds Fund by around $100 000 a year. The balance of the revenue will continue to be paid into the Hospitals and Charities Fund, which is used to support hospital, health and community services in Victoria. Benefits for the racing industry The Victorian government announced in January 2021 that the increased pass-through will see net benefit to the Victorian racing industry increase by around $20 million per annum. This increase will be provided to the three controlling bodies in racing in Victoria, being Racing Victoria (thoroughbreds), Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1987

The additional support for the industry through the passage of this bill ensures that the three bodies can: • continue to invest in prize money returns for the thousands of Victorian participants that work in the industry; • invest in important animal welfare and participant welfare measures; and • continue to invest in world-class racing/training facilities and infrastructure that attracts visitors and investment into Victoria. The revenue will also be critical in helping to close the gap with the New South Wales racing industry in terms of funding support it receives from government funding streams. It is imperative that the Victorian government continues to support an industry that supports many thousands of jobs to ensure that Victorian racing maintains its pre-eminence and ensures overseas and interstate racing investment is brought to Victoria. The racing industry is one of the state’s most significant industries, delivering more than $4.3 billion in economic value each year and supporting over 34 000 full-time equivalent jobs. A strong and vibrant racing industry is particularly key for regional Victoria where more than 100 clubs are supported by more than 80 000 individuals who are involved in the industry either as a participant, employee or volunteer. This includes more than 20 000 FTE across regional Victoria. Racing key stats for particular regions: • Ballarat region: more than 1300 FTE jobs, including an economic impact of training expenditure in the region of $48 million. • Bendigo region: more than 1200 FTE jobs, including an economic impact of training expenditure in the region of $34 million. • Geelong region: more than 1100 FTE jobs, including an economic impact of training expenditure in the region of $20 million. • Outer Melbourne region: more than 10 300 FTE jobs including an economic impact of training expenditure in the region of $180 million. The government recognises the critical importance that our regional racing clubs have for local communities. Not only is the sector a key employer in regional Victoria, employing more than 20 000 FTE jobs, but also a key community hub for regional towns and centres. This can be either through the social occasion of the annual country cup, or with clubs providing key infrastructure for their local communities. An increase in revenues for the racing industry will also assist the codes to continue to distribute prize money to thousands of participants, but also enable investment in key animal welfare programs. These include: • greyhound racing’s successful greyhound adoption program (GAP) which has seen an uplift in the number of greyhounds being adopted of more than 84 per cent in 2019–20 from 2014–15; and • Racing Victoria’s commitment to a $25 million animal welfare program that has seen see the expansion of a post-racing career, expanded tracking of thoroughbreds post-racing and a statewide foster program to support thoroughbreds in need; and • continued support for the harness racing HERO program, supporting life after racing options for retired standardbreds. A major bedrock of the Victorian major events calendar has always been the Spring Racing Carnival. This key event is a huge economic contributor to the state, both in terms of visitation and showcasing Melbourne and Victoria to the world. Key stats from 2019 Spring Racing Carnival (includes key racing events of the Melbourne Cup at Flemington, Cox Plate and Moonee Valley and the Caulfield Cup at Caulfield, amongst a range of country cups across the state): • $387.6 million direct spending • $743 million in gross economic benefit • 617 527 total attendance at all Victorian racecourses during Spring Racing Carnival • more than 89 000 out-of-state individuals attended • more 300 000 bed nights • more than $76 million in fashion and personal grooming spend. BILLS 1988 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

While the New South Wales Racing Industry and government has attempted to challenge Victoria’s Spring Racing Carnival with new races and significant prize money increases, the Victorian government is committed to ensuring that it maintains its status as Australia pre-eminent racing carnival. Along with government funding support through the $72 million Victorian Racing Industry Fund, measures such as this legislation are key to ensuring that the sector continues to grow and protects the thousands of Victorian jobs it provides. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June: On face value, this is a bill about increasing the rate of Victoria’s point-of-consumption tax, from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. But in fact, this is really a bill about reinforcing the close relationship between this government, the racing industry and the gambling lobby. The Greens support the point-of-consumption tax. We support progressive taxation that captures unearned wealth, or appropriately taxes products that cause harm to our community. We support making online bookies pay tax on profit made from Victorian consumers, regardless of where the companies might be located. And we support increasing the rate of the point-of-consumption tax, so that we’re no longer the betting tax haven of Australia, with the lowest point-of-consumption tax rate of any state. What we don’t support is funnelling the income from an increased tax rate directly into the coffers of the horse and greyhound racing codes. An industry that has no trouble making a profit on its own on the back of cruel treatment of animals. Last year, even with COVID restrictions supposedly harming their income—to the point where they received $16 million from the government in COVID-19 emergency funding—Racing Victoria still posted a surplus of $10.7 million. And with this bill, they stand to gain $83.3 million from the increased racing industry payment in the next financial year, almost $50 million more than they currently receive. It’s another in a line of special handouts and preferential treatment that this government gives to the racing industry. Last year, for example, when most industries closed their doors during stage 4, horse and greyhound racing continued. Animal cruelty somehow deemed an essential service. And in October, when gatherings were limited to five people, the racing minister tried to allow 500 racehorse owners to mingle at the Cox Plate. The bill before us today is more special treatment. The government has been embarrassed into lifting the rate from the lowest in the country at 8 per cent to match NSW at 10 per cent. This brings us into equal last place with NSW but still behind the 15 per cent tax rate in all other states. It is a missed opportunity. A 15 per cent rate would show this government was committed to proper taxation of harmful products and was willing to stand up to the big online betting companies and ensure they pay their fair share. And, according to the PBO, a 15 per cent tax rate and ceasing guaranteed payment to the racing industry would bring in an additional $530 million to 2024–25 or over $2 billion in the next decade. Money that could be spent on public services including public health through the hospitals fund. You would think funding public health would be a priority in the middle of a pandemic over shovelling cash to your mates in the racing industry. We know that, unlike the opposition, the government isn’t afraid of taxation. For better or for worse, they are willing to engage in tax reform and introduce new levies and charges. For better, like the new windfall gains tax on unearned land wealth, and for worse, like the misguided tax on electric vehicles. But in gambling, in racing, they’ve chickened out. They have been embarrassed into lifting the rate to 10 per cent but because they’re more interested in looking after their mates in the racing and gambling industries all the additional revenue will flow directly to supporting the cruel horseracing and greyhound racing industries. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1989

The Treasurer confirmed in his second-reading speech that the payment to the racing industry will be increased from 1.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent of net wagering revenue. It’s abundantly clear that the intention of this bill is to raise the tax just so the government can hand more money to the Victorian racing industry. The racing industry already benefited from existing tax arrangements. As bluntly stated in last year’s review of the operation of the point-of-consumption tax, the reason our rate was set so low was to ‘minimise any potential negative effects upon the wagering and racing industries’. And it’s really disappointing to hear that the rationale for the bill today is not about making this tax stronger but about keeping up appearances with the racing industry across the border in New South Wales. Because, as the Treasurer stated in his second-reading speech, the intention of this bill is to make sure that the ‘pre-eminence’ of the Victorian racing industry is not threatened by the growth of racing in NSW. It’s hard to have any sympathy for the pre-eminence of an industry predicated upon causing gambling harm and enabling animal cruelty. It is almost as though the multiple deaths of horses each year, especially during our Spring Racing Carnival, never happen. The centrepiece of the carnival, the Melbourne Cup, is frequently marred by the death of a horse on the tracks—six deaths in the last seven years, most recently the tragic death of Anthony Van Dyck at last year’s Melbourne Cup. And greyhound racing, which also receives part of the racing industry payment from this tax. Where our state leads the country in deaths and injuries on the track. Last year 72 dogs were killed and 3716 injured on greyhound racing tracks in our state. The Greens support the increase of the tax—although we would have preferred to see the government be more ambitious on the rate—but we cannot support handouts to the racing industry. I will be seeking to amend this bill today to remove the provisions from the Gambling Regulation Act that allow the payment to the Victorian racing industry. I wanted to conclude my comments by reiterating support for the point-of-consumption tax and the increase in the tax in this bill. It remains disappointing that despite this bill Victoria is still coming last when it comes to taxing online betting and even more disappointing that the government’s close relationship with the gambling industry means the additional revenue raised by the tax will go directly to the cruel racing industry. I hope the champagne tent at the Melbourne Cup is worth it. The government defends this by citing jobs in the racing industry but any direct investment by the government in an industry will create jobs. The revenue could be spent on investing more in supporting people with gambling addiction—caring for people and creating jobs. The government needs to come clean on its support for the gambling industry. It has spent too long defending the likes of Crown Casino, the pokies cartel and the cruelty of the racing industry. Too many Victorians are being hurt by gambling and deserve more from this government. The privileges the gambling and racing industries get from this government are worth keeping in mind, especially in the context of the royal commission and the revealing stories that we’ve heard over the past few weeks. Of an arrogant and untouchable organisation, which has repeatedly flouted the rules with no consequences. Refusing to hand over documents. Short-changing the government on pokies revenue. Letting gamblers play the pokies for 18 hours straight. Allowing gamblers to use their precommitment cards to unlock the more dangerous machines that spin faster and take larger bets. When we’re hearing these stories, but at the same time passing a bill that also reinforces the special treatment given to another major player in gambling, it’s hard not to see the pattern here. It’s also very clear that this government does care about protecting some species—the racing industry, the gambling industry and duck shooters—but it doesn’t seem to care as much about the horses, ducks, greyhounds, let alone the many Victorians who are preyed upon by the gambling industry each and every year. So while we support the increase in tax we cannot support giving the revenue from the tax straight to the racing industry. Motion agreed to. Read second time. BILLS 1990 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Third reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (14:12): I move, by leave:

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. STATE TAXATION AND MENTAL HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms PULFORD: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:13): I am pleased to rise to make some remarks on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. The title of this bill is unusual in that it includes ‘mental health acts’. This is the bill that is introduced concurrently with the handing down of the budget to provide the mechanism to give effect to revenue measures announced in the budget. The fact that the title has been extended from ‘state taxation amendment bill’ to include ‘and mental health acts’ reflects the way in which the government is attempting to pitch this bill as one where funding is being hypothecated to its mental health package. What we are seeing with this bill is a very substantial increase in taxation at a time when the Victorian economy cannot afford it. These are the wrong taxes at the wrong time. This bill was introduced with the budget as Victoria was emerging from the worst effects of the pandemic and the government- enforced lockdowns, which saw the state locked down for well over 150 days, and ironically, since the bill has been introduced and since the budget has been introduced we have seen a subsequent lockdown, which is now into its second week. So it is 14 days for this lockdown, and of course we know that is having a very significant impact on Victorian businesses. We heard in question time today about the impact it has been having on small business, but we know that it is having an impact on all businesses across the state. So it is completely wrong for the government to be introducing these taxation measures at this point in time when the Victorian economy is under such stress and businesses are suffering in the way they are. What the government is seeking to do with its mental health element of this bill is to impose a mental health and wellbeing levy—so-called to make a distinction from tax—which effectively is an increase in payroll tax. It is being framed as a separate levy, but in reality the levy is a payroll tax impost. The government estimates that this new payroll tax impost will raise in the 2021–22 financial year $386 million, increasing to $880 million by the 2024–25 financial year, so this is a very, very significant impost on Victorian businesses and on employment in Victoria. We currently have payroll tax revenues of around $6 billion forecast for the budget year, and this will be an additional 5 per cent on top of that in total by way of the mental health and wellbeing levy. It is worth putting that in context. What does that mean for employment? The ABS estimated, I think, to November that average full-time weekly earnings in Victoria are around $92 000 per person. So this tax of $386 million on Victorian employers, on Victorian payrolls, is equivalent to more than 4000 jobs in the first year, rising to more than 8000, nearly 9000, jobs in 2024–25. It is not only a substantial impost on businesses but a substantial drain on the potential for employment in this state. $880 million by 2024–25 is equivalent to 8800 jobs that will not be created or that will be forgone because employers need to pay the additional $880 million. Even with the base rate of payroll tax a similar calculation can be done, where in the budget year 2021–22 $6.5 billion in revenue is attributed BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1991 to payroll tax. That is roughly equivalent to 69 000 jobs at average weekly earnings. So it is a very substantial drag on the Victorian economy, and it is a very substantial deterrent to job creation in this state. For that reason the Liberal-National coalition will not be supporting this creation of the mental health and wellbeing levy. We believe that mental health services are important. They are more important now than at any point in time because of the way in which this government has harmed the social fabric and has harmed the mental wellbeing of the Victorian community. There is no doubt that mental health services are incredibly important, but they should be funded as the core base of government services, not through a tacked-on mental health and wellbeing levy. Other areas where we have concerns with the bill include the increase in land tax rates for high-value landholdings, which will see $335 million raised in 2021–22 increasing to $433 million by 2024–25. This is something that the property industry has said very clearly is going to have a significant deterrent effect on investment in development in this state. At a time when Victoria is once again lagging behind the rest of the nation—and that is going to accelerate—we have a significant impost being imposed on property in this state which will simply deter investment. No other state has endured the shutdowns and lockdowns that Victoria has. No other state has fallen as far behind as Victoria has. And while those opposite might like to say, ‘Oh, the economy is growing strongly’, that is because of the tens of billions of dollars in unsustainable pump priming that the government has been throwing at it which, when it falls away, will have a very significant impact on the economy. Likewise, the so-called premium duty rate on land transfer duty for high-value properties, commonly known as stamp duty, is the measure whereby the government is proposing to increase the rate of stamp duty on property purchases over $2 million initially to raise $136 million in the 2021–22 financial year and increasing to $229 million by 2024–25. Now, the Treasurer tried to spin this as, ‘This is only affecting the top end of town’—the usual class warfare rhetoric that we get from this government. In reality there are now dozens of suburbs in Victoria where the median house price exceeds $2 million. So this is not going to affect a narrow cohort of Victorians. It is actually going to affect vast swathes of suburban Melbourne and tens of thousands of families who buy and sell properties in those areas. So, again, we will not be supporting that measure. There are a number of other measures that have been announced in the budget which have not yet been given effect to by way of legislation, including the windfall gains tax on land rezoning. It is going to be fascinating to see how the government seeks to enshrine that in legislation. We saw the mess with the EV tax two weeks ago, when the government created a mechanism whereby drivers of electric vehicles need to photograph their odometer and send it in to the secretary of the department in order to have the excise or charge levied on them. It will be fascinating to see what sort of mechanism the government comes up with to determine how the so-called windfall gains tax will actually be calculated when it arises from a theoretical increase in value as a consequence of a rezoning. So the coalition has a number of concerns with this bill. We also have a concern with respect to the way in which the increase in payroll tax, by way of the levy, applies to universities. And we saw the extraordinary situation with the Treasurer, in an interview with Neil Mitchell, not even being aware of whether this impost would hit universities, when in fact it is going to hit them to the tune of tens of millions of dollars when they are already at a very weakened position because of the lack of access to foreign students, which has been ongoing over the last 12 months. That is something that Dr Bach is going to have more to say about as the debate proceeds. We have a number of concerns about this bill. These are the wrong taxes at the wrong time. The coalition will not support this bill, and if the bill gets to committee, we will seek to omit these taxes individually by way of omitting clauses. We will also seek, subject to the amendments being finalised, to give effect to the announcement made by the coalition prior to the budget that we would give effect to a reduction in payroll tax for small business in this state. BILLS 1992 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition was that a coalition government would increase the threshold for payroll tax to $1.6 million, thereby exempting around 15 000 small businesses from the payroll tax net. We believe this is the sort of measure which is required at the moment. It is the sort of measure which will help our small businesses, which are struggling very badly as a consequence of the lockdown, and therefore we will be seeking to give effect to that by way of amendments if the bill gets to the committee stage. This bill is a bad bill, these taxes are the wrong taxes at this point in time. The coalition will be opposing them, and I would urge other members of the house to also oppose their introduction. Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (14:25): I am most pleased to rise and make a contribution on the debate for the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. I will not be speaking for a huge amount of time, because I know these are COVID times and how many other people would like to make a contribution, but in the time that I have I do want to pay significant tribute to this government’s unwavering commitment and bravery around tackling the big issues that affect the Victorian community. One of the great achievements of this government, if the chamber can indulge me, was of course the Royal Commission into Family Violence, which was the first of its kind in Australia and which systematically, forensically and very carefully looked at the insidious and pervasive nature of family violence in our community, with the full powers and the full independence and operation of a royal commission, and came up with a suite of recommendations which the government has implemented. Again, this was the next step the government took in the big issues that need to be tackled around mental health in our community, which for too long right around this country and indeed globally has not been given the proper attention that it deserves in terms of its ongoing impacts on individuals’ lives, on their families, on our communities, on how we are able to function as a society and also on such things as the capacity for productivity and the like—the full gamut of issues. And for too long there have been issues around gaps in the system, not treating the underlying causes but treating the effects, not having our services joined up properly, not understanding the issues that we were dealing with, having people with various mental illnesses being thrown into the one bucket, not getting in early for early intervention or following up with post-treatment plans—these are just some of the issues. Having specialist teams dealing with it, having enough mental health nurses, having appropriate facilities—these are issues that this state and indeed jurisdictions right around Australia have been grappling with for decades, and they have not been doing a particularly good job of it at any level around this country. What this government had the courage to do was to say, ‘We’re going to look at that. We’re going to take it out of our hands and we’re going to put it in the hands of the royal commission’—a comprehensive, in-depth inquiry into mental health in this state. And we promised at that time that we would accept every single recommendation of the royal commission and that we would act to fix things. At its heart this bill is about acting to fix things in this space, and certainly of course it has a range of other provisions which others will go to in great depth, but as we speak today I want to pay tribute to the ministers who have focused on this issue, in particular Minister Foley, who began this journey. Now it has been taken on by Minister Merlino, the Acting Premier, who of course has the portfolio of education, and those two things go so importantly well hand in hand. This bill at its heart is about fixing our mental health system. It is about ensuring that everybody who can contribute will contribute to making the changes that need to be done. This is going to create a huge change. Most importantly, it will transform individual lives. It will transform individual lives through much better targeted services and an end-to-end approach that starts from the beginning of life and goes right through to ensure that we are capturing those people who are suffering and that we are giving them the treatment they deserve. That is what this is about. It is about then ensuring that those people who can help contribute, those large corporations who can help contribute to that journey, do so. In the bulk it will be of course the state that is managing all of this, as it should be. It is allowing BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1993 for a broader range of people to contribute to what is an issue that affects us all, be it on a personal level, on a family level, with our friends or with our colleagues, and significantly on a state level. On a state level this is an issue that impacts us all. It impacts on our wellbeing, it impacts on the health of our communities, it impacts on the productivity of the workers, and if it is not dealt with properly, at the end of the day it creates huge issues for people who have slipped through the cracks, who have turned to crime, who are unable to work—all of the things that we know are the products of untreated mental illness. This bill at its heart is about addressing those issues. It is about implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. It is about making sure that we as a government and as a community fairly and squarely face these issues and act on them. I commend the bill to the house. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (14:31): I will be brief. The Liberal Democrats will not support this budget. The budget expects to make Victorians $79 billion poorer. It will destroy thousands of jobs and make Victorians poorer and less independent. Victorians pay $100 billion to the federal government and another $6 billion to their local councils. The total expenditure on government is more than half of a person’s income. If we look at taxes as a percentage of time spent working, then people in minimum-wage jobs spend half a year working for the government before they earn any money for themselves. These charges total more than $185 billion. It is a number that is difficult to put into perspective. This number amounts to $72 000 per year per household. That is $6000 each month. For contrast, Netflix charges $15 a month, and many families make the decision not to pay for Netflix because they feel $15 a month is too much. So how can families afford $6000 a month? It is true that a great deal of this tax scales with income. Poorer people pay less income tax, for example. However, when you add all these taxes together you find that many poorer people end up paying a larger share of their income than others. For example, vehicle registrations and excise do not scale and end up taking a large portion of small incomes. The government knows that the cost is severe, but your wealth is a sacrifice they are willing to make. Every dollar of this $185 billion would have been spent by Victorians on goods and services that improve their lives. It would have created jobs and made Victorians better off. It is not just money, it is decades of working and saving. It is an enormous part of our lives. That is the cost of government. The Liberal Democrats hold the position that this cost is far too high for what we get in return. We think that most of this money is better off in the hands of the people who earned it. If it were up to us, we would significantly reduce the size of government. A welfare safety net and the provision of common goods like roads are not the enemy. The billions of dollars spent on political projects, white elephants, selective handout programs, corporate welfare, middle-class vote buying nonsense and the cycle of taxation into government dependence are things we can do without. The failure and destruction of this budget does not end there. The methods of theft used to extract these resources from Victorians are the least efficient and most destructive ones possible. It would be difficult to create a worse taxation system if you tried. The state taxation regime steals most of its resources through two taxes. $6.5 billion will come from a tax on jobs and $6.7 billion will come from a tax on houses. These taxes suppress wages and make housing less affordable. The government likes to remind us at every chance that they love tax, but even the government has options. They do not have to collect money through payroll and stamp duty taxes—they just do not care about the damage they do. The government often talks about how they love taking money from working Victorians. They want to take as much as possible from productive parts of the economy. I guess some people are just so in love with the power of government that they will justify forcibly taking half of everyone’s income through the most pointless and destructive means possible. The Liberal Democrats reject this. We are not impressed by government, and we feel that wilful and careless destruction of the wealth of Victorians is not acceptable. BILLS 1994 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

This budget doubles down on the jobs tax. They try to trick people by claiming that only big business will have to pay this tax, but we know this tax is paid by the employees of those businesses. This government is taking money from the hands of working Victorians, lying to them about it and telling them it is in the name of mental health. Victorians will see through this. The small shifts on the surface are not the big issue. The new taxes this year are just the icing on the cake. The body of these taxes are the affront to the Victorian public year after year. The Liberal Democrats are proud to support lower taxes for working Victorians, and we are proud to oppose this budget. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:36): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution to this bill, the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. I know that Mr Rich-Phillips has laid out the coalition’s position quite comprehensively. I do want to say for a start that this is a misnomer, ‘mental health acts amendment bill’, on the end of the title. It is really a state taxation and increased payroll tax acts amendment bill—that would be a nicer and more accurate name. It is a bill that seeks to introduce a whole raft of new taxes, and the coalition is very concerned about these. It is concerned about them in and of themselves and the impact that they will have on individual sectors—I will say more about that in a moment—but also concerned about the timing of these taxes, which are a slug on a very vulnerable economy at the moment, a vulnerable construction industry and other sectors that are likely to be hit very hard as a number of commonwealth and other programs come off. I do want to step through this bill with a little bit of detail in the relatively short period of time that I have. It is important to note that this increases stamp duty very significantly. It is a fact that the stamp duty increase for properties over $2 million will lead to a significant increase and hit on the stamp duty paid by many everyday families. Across my electorate, Ms Crozier’s electorate, Southern Metro, for example, there are many suburbs—and across other parts of our state there are many suburbs—that now are in a category that either has a median house price over $2 million or indeed has a median house price which is not too distant from that. With house price rises the way they are going, it will not be long before many more suburbs are in that category. It is also true that when people buy homes in the first instance they often buy a cheaper home, a flat or a smaller home, and later buy a more expensive home, and they will be clobbered with the expenses of moving. These stamp duty hits are very significant and are growing more so under this government. I remember election eve in 2014. Daniel Andrews was there. He was saying there would be no new taxes under his government, none at all—none at all, he told Channel 7. Yet we now know that there are 38 new taxes that have been introduced by this government over the last term and a half. We know that this has had a huge impact on the economy. We are now seeing people fleeing the state to avoid some of the taxation arrangements, and some of the hits that are in this bill will actually have a very significant negative impact. The land tax increases are a straight hit on the many thrifty people who have got super funds that have landholdings of various types and the many migrant communities that have worked hard and made good for themselves and their family. They are now being clobbered, absolutely clobbered, by Daniel Andrews and his government. I think there is an inherent unfairness about this. People who have saved hard, put money into their super funds and own one or two small properties are going to be slugged very hard with these provisions on land tax. The payroll tax changes here will have a very significant impact too. The fact is that they are being put on a wide range of firms beginning at $10 million national payrolls, which is not a huge amount for many middle-ranking firms, and those with national payrolls above $100 million will pay an additional 0.5 per cent on top of that. That payroll tax surcharge will really, really hit in decisions that are made by firms that want to locate in Victoria. They will have to make a harsh decision about whether they pay the additional payroll tax in Victoria or whether they take the option of lower payroll taxes in other states. I was talking to one of the big consulting firms the other day. They have offices in every state. If they are putting on a new division, a new set of expertise, they will have to make a decision whether BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1995 they put it on in Brisbane or Sydney or Melbourne fundamentally, and this will be a disincentive to putting those people on in Melbourne. That is one very, very small example that I would point to. Mr Rich-Phillips has also pointed clearly to the uplift tax that is being proposed by the government, which is not in this bill but is part of the budget announcements that have been made. We are told this will come in a separate bill, and I must say we are very curious to see how this will be applied. It is not to be applied to growth areas infrastructure contribution land; there are separate increases in GAIC in the budget anyway. But leaving that aside, it is not on GAIC-able land but it is to be put on regional centres, so Ballarat and Bendigo and so forth will be clobbered with this new and significant uplift tax. I think it will also hit infill sites in the city. Developers have relayed this to me in recent weeks: they are horrified about what this will do to the predictability and certainty with which people are able to proceed with projects. There are brownfield sites in the city and nearby that we all want to see redeveloped. They are often of no great use anymore in the way they are. There is often a remediation cost. Will those sorts of costs be taken up with this market uplift tax—50 per cent of the value on a planning change? So a planning change is made and the property goes from $50 million to $100 million in value, let us just say, but there is tens of millions in remediation to be done on the site and there are holding costs. These costs do not seem to have been factored in. The government seems determined to slug the property and development industry with a tax that will clobber hard those groups that have taken risks to redevelop some of these properties in the city. I think part of it is about the government’s determination, most clearly put out in last year’s budget, to use value capture to fund much of its Suburban Rail Loop. I think we will see planning changes in and around Suburban Rail Loop stations and along the line. I think the government will then seek to capture the uplift and use that to fund what is currently an unfunded $150 billion project. It is at least $100 billion and more likely north of $150 billion on the estimates that I am hearing out of the department and elsewhere for the full size of the project. The government is saying it is only doing phase 1 at this point, but at the same time the work has not been done on this. There is no business case. There is no decision about much of the technologies. We have seen the minister has made certain decisions, but how are those decisions made? What is the background information behind them? Where will the stations be precisely located? Where are the ingress and the egress from these stations? What is the impact on local communities? Communities are being ridden roughshod over on this because they are not being properly consulted on these community-changing outcomes that we see. Mr Rich-Phillips and I visited the proposed stabling yards location at Heatherton— Mr Rich-Phillips: It was a park when we visited it. Mr DAVIS: It was a park when we visited it, and part of it is the old tip site, which was to be remediated and made into a full park and part of a chain of parks, part of the protected green wedge lands. The government are planning to put a railway station in some of these areas, and I would not be surprised to see them doing rezoning and uplift capture as they are proposing to do in this bill. It is actually, I think, quite sinister the way they are approaching this, and we will want to see when that bill comes more precise costings about how they intend to progress this. I also want to make the point that the property industry is very concerned about the impact of these additional taxes. They are concerned that much of the Victorian land that has been brought forward in precinct structure plans and so forth will be clobbered further. The real estate sector is very concerned about what will happen with the stamp duty hits. That will make property less attractive; it will make moving less attractive. We know that assessments have been done on high levels of stamp duty and the impact that that has on the desirable outcomes that we all want to see. People are afraid to downsize, they are afraid to move house because of the enormous hit with stamp duty, and that is a significant problem for our community. BILLS 1996 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The other thing I would say is that this huge hit in taxation—there are 38 new taxes now under this government—is actually a very significant step that flows directly from the government’s failure to manage its major projects, which have seen huge cost blowouts on almost every significant major project. I pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Grattan Institute looking at a number of the megaprojects around Australia but pointing in particular to Victoria and looking at a number of these projects. We can see the problems with the West Gate Tunnel. We can see the problems with the Metro Tunnel. We know the problems that have occurred with level crossings, although the government will not actually provide us with the full costings on level crossings when they are completed. There are about 40 level crossings that have been completed, but the government continues to refuse to release the cost of those finalised crossings. They know the cost, but they refuse to release it. You can only imagine that the reason for the secretive behaviour of this government is that it is embarrassed. It is embarrassed by the increase in costs that have occurred. One of the consequences of losing control of many of these major projects and the enormous cost blowouts—and we see in the budget this year $3.7 billion is effectively the recent 12-month blowout in the cost—is that that has got to be paid for somehow, and the answer is it is paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers are being clobbered with new taxes to pay for these increased costs. Now, why can’t the government run its projects properly? Why can’t it constrain the costs on these projects, keep to its original estimates, do the scoping better at the start and introduce more competitive processes in the tendering? One of the issues that we see increasingly is the out-of-control alliance model that is operating here. With the alliance model the government goes forward with a partially scoped project. It is basically a cost-plus model that the government is using with many of these alliance projects, and we all know what happens if you go into a cost-plus contract with your builder: ‘Build my house, but actually we’re going to build it on a cost-plus model’—there is actually no specific incentive to keep the costs down, and in fact there is arguably an incentive for builders in those circumstances to let the costs rip. That is what we are seeing with many of these projects—a cost-plus arrangement, an alliance arrangement. They are moving forward, and the consequence, the outcome, is these projects are massively, massively over budget. In the case of the Metro Tunnel, as I have said before in this chamber, the recent step was effectively a $3 billion agreement, but I note under that agreement there is also a dispute resolution formula and mechanism agreed by the government with the Cross Yarra Partnership, and the reason they have agreed on this mechanism, this dispute settlement approach, is there are outstanding matters that have to be resolved. These cost blowouts are going up, and I hear that the number is nearer to $4 billion in fact on that project now. The state government has already taken a $1.35 billion or thereabouts swallow on this. The Cross Yarra Partnership have had to bear some of that. But let us be clear what is going on here: the government is going to find a way to kick the costs out into the distance. That is what this government does—it kicks the cost can out into the further distance. The ratings agencies have woken up to that. I say one of the key reasons that we have this bill here is the government has lost control of its budget. It has to show the ratings agencies—it has to prove to the ratings agencies— that it has got new revenue sources, so it has gone out hard to get new revenue sources from stamp duty, from land tax, from the uplift tax and all of those matters. I want to say one thing about mental health: it is too important to be left to having its own special tax. It should be part of the normal budget process. It should be part of a process that is actually a settled part of the process and not require a special, new and nasty tax that stigmatises the need for mental health to be properly funded. I say that is wrong. I say the government should have controlled its budget better, and in controlling its budget it should not have needed these new taxes. Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:52): I rise to make a brief contribution this afternoon on this bill, which would seek to basically hit a great section of Victorians with more taxes. Living in the country and seeing the effect that our lockdowns have had on regional Victoria is most heartbreaking. It is most heartbreaking to see the empty streets during lockdown number four. Normally busy, bustling BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1997 streets are empty, and, what is more, the shops are empty. Before I came in yesterday I walked down to Bourke Street to get something, and I was horrified to see, from the top of Spring Street walking into the centre of the city, the number of empty shops—not just every now and then and not just closed shops but empty shops. Our city, our beautiful Melbourne city, is dying from the inside out. Our beautiful regional towns and centres are being forced to wear a burden that is almost too hard to bear for many and they just cannot stay open. What is the bedside manner of the Andrews government? The bedside manner is under the cover of support for mental health, which we all endorse, which we all know needs to be rectified, which we all know needs to be fixed, which we all know is broken in various facets. It is not serving the community and is not servicing those people at the very tipping point of need. But under that cover what this government is doing—and I will take up Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips’s comments—is introducing the wrong tax at the wrong time. Recently Australian Bureau of Statistics data was analysed by former ANZ chief economist Saul Eslake, and he said Victorians were lagging behind most other states and territories on household disposable income—that is what we can find to go out and enjoy our lives, to go out and buy the things we need to buy, to go out and invest—and lagging in terms of economic productivity. We have seen that in spades as we walk down our main streets. He also found that the Andrews government is inflicting even deeper economic damage with its incompetent handling of the pandemic. We need to learn from mistakes, and this government is kind of the gold standard of making mistakes. The government needs to learn from and to address these mistakes. If it can turn its head to what is the best outcome for Victorians, then we can all look to that space, we can all look to that future. But at the moment this government is choosing to lock down our state and bring in taxes. He also said, in finishing his commentary, that Victoria has become a relatively poor state, with an annual disposable household income per person which is $5300 less than New South Wales. Now, it is no wonder that we hear stories of internal migration across the border, across the Murray to New South Wales, to Queensland and to other states, because Victorians are just fair dinkum and they are sick of this position. This bill amends five acts: the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005, the Mental Health Act 2014 and the Payroll Tax Act 2007. What we see in this bill, as I have said, is new taxes that are really putting Victoria’s economy at risk. You cannot tax your way into recovery. Last year’s consecutive lockdowns in regional Victoria caused so much distress, with the hotel quarantine, with the events and tourism industry just brought to their knees. Our pubs, clubs, restaurants, entertainment all took a hit, and as I have said, many of these will not remain open. Business support grants were difficult to obtain and applicants were often desperate to access this scattering of funds. I have had examples of where some of our local hotels spent six months, even though they achieved the criteria, ringing weekly to try and get some of these funds back to them. Sole traders have had a significant blow, and we see again that there is no help from this government for those earning under $75 000 even though they have ABNs and they operate businesses. It is a slap in the face for those business operators when they call the Victorian hotline. JobKeeper certainly kept Victoria afloat, but it is not the sole responsibility of the federal government to reach in and to support Victorian businesses to stay open. This government is taxing those businesses as we go through lockdown 4. The other thing that this bill seeks to do is to really tap into and target the housing market and affect housing affordability. It has been one of the casualties of COVID, so I find it quite concerning that this government wants to slug potential homebuyers even more with another level of tax just to put roofs over their heads. The Property Council of Australia has said:

The Victorian Government has given itself a massive 13 per cent pay rise this year thanks to increased property taxes and new taxes on families, jobs and investment. BILLS 1998 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Acknowledging the stagnancy of wage growth and unemployment at 6.1 per cent, Danni Hunter, the council’s Victorian executive director, suggests also that now is not the time to raise taxes and introduce new ones. At the core of this level of taxing we see that among the new taxes from July this year property transactions with a dutiable value of more than $2 million will be subject to a premium— get that; hit me again—of $110 000 plus 6.5 per cent if the dutiable value exceeds that $2 million mark. What this proposed tax will do is further add pressure to the property sector, which again is going to make it more and more difficult to purchase homes. And we have already seen that in 26 suburbs across Victoria the median house price is over $2 million, so in no way is this just those affluent, richer suburbs. Twenty-six suburbs have a median house price over $2 mill. Also, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria in its quarterly report showed that the median price of a house in metropolitan Melbourne has bumped up by 8.8 per cent to over $1 million. In regional Victoria there has been a 12.3 per cent increase in the last 12 months to a $500 000 median price. Now, we know why that is. Unfortunately the lockdown in Melbourne has driven people out to the country. They are feeling like they have no choice, that they need to move to the country. Now, a wise decision that will be, because country Victoria is a fantastic place to live and work and raise a family, but it also puts significant pressure on the system. The Property Council of Australia have suggested that the new stamp duty will hit 50 per cent of homes in 120 suburbs by 2030, and again, the Property Council have said:

Now is not the time for budget repair and is not the time to over-tax an industry that employs one in four Victorian workers. This budget is supposed to be supporting the mental health system via a levy. Well, we all understand that this state has multiple needs, and the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System showed that, in terms of its recommendations to heal, support and bring about better outcomes for those with mental health issues. That is a given, but to do this in such a way, again, is such a disappointment in a government that should own its own responsibilities and own its support for mental health. Wesfarmers, Coles, Telstra and the banking sector—some 9000 businesses—are set to be hit by a surcharge. The CEO of Wesfarmers, Rob Scott, told the Australian Financial Review, that:

… this levy targets the businesses that employ the most Australians and it diminishes Victoria’s standing as a place to do business and employ people. If we look at, ‘Well, how should we be funding these various investments in mental health?’, let us look at the budget blowouts in all of the major projects that this government is undertaking. The North East Link was promised to be $5 billion, and it is now tipping $15 billion, almost $16 billion. That is a blowout. The Metro Tunnel was promised to be $9 billion, and it is now at $12.5 billion and growing. The level crossing removals were promised to be $5 billion and are now at $8 billion. And we remember the east–west link that was supposed to occur and would be finished by now if it had been undertaken, and that was $1.3 billion to rip up a contract. These are massive tax hikes for stamp duty, for land tax and for payroll tax, and I reiterate the position that many wise heads have put in the public domain: this is not the right tax and this is not the right time. Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:04): Well, I have heard a lot of doublespeak in this place over the years, and today has been no different. I have listened to members of the opposition and people around this chamber in fact talk on the one hand about how it is incredibly important to implement the recommendations of the signature policy of the Andrews Labor government’s second term, being a royal commission into our broken mental health system, and yet on the other hand saying that this should be a part of business as usual. And on the one hand I have seen that pandemic response and relief and recovery are a huge part of what everyone agrees we need to be doing in order to bring Victoria back to recover and to grow following the worst year that so many of us can remember, and yet on the other hand I am hearing that this money should not be spent on those who need it most. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 1999

I have heard so many things that clash with each other, that do not emulsify, because they amount to nothing more than weasel words, and what I do not hear is any plan from those opposite as to how to actually meet the costs associated with what they are prepared to agree is a fundamental set of priorities and needs for Victorian communities and families and workers and businesses. And I have heard repeatedly in this place a confusion between the taxation and business models of sole traders on the one hand and GST-exempt entities on the other. I have heard from those opposite that in fact payroll tax relief is a really important thing without acknowledging that in regional Victoria, for example, through the latest budget initiatives we have brought payroll tax down to the lowest, again, in Australia and that these further measures which are being proposed will continue to provide relief to those who need it most. I have listened very carefully to the narrative from those opposite, and to me it is as scrambled as a plate of eggs on a Sunday morning, because these people who sit in opposition are very happy to come up with naysaying narratives when it suits them without any alternative ideas as to how in fact to pay for their in-principle support of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and its 65 recommendations. On the one hand those opposite think in fact that we should be doing something to combat a rate of suicide across this state which is double the road toll, and yet on the other they do not think that in fact there should be any initiative required for it to be paid for beyond consolidated revenue. Well, you cannot have it both ways. There is not one person I know who has not been either directly or indirectly impacted by mental illness, by compromise to quality of life and wellbeing, by longevity, by participation in our economic community or by completion of work, of study and of pathways to employment as a consequence of the scourge of mental illness. And we see time and time again that those opposite are very, very happy to say, ‘We support these things in principle’, but when it comes to putting the money on the table they are nowhere to be seen because they are just busy running a scaremongering campaign about how this all relates to an inability to manage our economy responsibly. Responsible management of an economy, however, comes down to being able to balance competing priorities, and never have we seen a set of challenges around the need to be economically responsible as we have in the last year, when economic priorities walked hand in hand with the social and the health and the community-based priorities that have arisen. Never have they been seen more starkly than they have in the course of the pandemic. We have invested just this week in a further $250 million, taking our small business and business support package—which includes sole traders, Ms Bath; you may want to take that one up and have a read of what the package actually entails—to just a shade under half a billion dollars in support and investment for those small-to-medium enterprises which are doing it so tough. Ms Bath talked about income support and assistance through the welfare system as being something that the state should be involved in. It is squarely a commonwealth government responsibility, and what we have done is to provide record levels of assistance to small businesses— Ms Bath interjected. Ms SHING: I will take up that interjection. Ms Bath talks about ‘What about opening up small business?’. Well, you know what? A staged reintroduction of the capacity to trade is something that we have seen as part of a cautious and gradual process to reopen our economy, which is based fairly and squarely in expert public health advice. Those opposite are prepared to use public health advice when it suits them and to abandon it, on the other hand, when and as it suits them. And nothing would seem to provide an emblem of the incompetence of the Victorian opposition more than the QAnon, fanciful conspiracy-theory bollocks that we have been listening to in the course of the last couple of weeks. They are peddling conspiracies, making up rumours, all to distract from the fact that those opposite have absolutely no plan—no plan—when it comes to being able to deliver even a skerrick of credibility as a viable alternative government. Those opposite are prepared to oppose no matter what the cost, and the cost in fact has been to their credibility. Victorians need and indeed deserve certainty and recovery. Victorians need and deserve access to world-class local facilities and services. Victorians deserve a state which has the best possible BILLS 2000 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 opportunities for people, including in our services sector, including in the delivery of programs, that will enable people to feed their families, that will enable people to pay their bills and that will enable people in the absence of substantive government support. There is government support, actually; I should put a caveat on that. The government did in fact at the federal level say that it was not going to tax the payments that we are making available to small businesses as part of this a shade under half a billion dollar fund, yet on the other hand we have seen the federal government come out and say that in fact it is going to tax the disaster relief support payment for workers, which it will be making available to some parts of the state. It is going to tax those people who I heard Ms Bath talk about today, workers, and who I have heard other people talk about today, workers. It suits those opposite to talk about workers when it fits their narrative, otherwise they could not run away fast enough. What we also see is that it is families who need and deserve this level of assistance who are not only not getting this from Canberra, they are not getting it from their opposition. They are not getting it where they live in seats held by members of the opposition. And when they are getting it, it is because of the statewide initiatives that are intended to provide relief on everything from electricity bills through to not needing to pay for a dental bill for a child, because of the Smile Squad initiative, through to being able to access enhanced food relief programs, through to being able to access a $450 payment in the event of a COVID test being required or a $1500 payment in the event of someone being required to isolate or care for somebody who is required to isolate. These are the sorts of initiatives that are assisting workers, that are assisting families, in the absence of the completely impotent commonwealth government when it comes to actually delivering on measures that make a practical difference. It is not as though there is no precedent for actually being on the side of entire communities, including workers. We saw that the former Attorney-General, Christian Porter, was in a position to be able to partner with the ACTU to deliver improvements to JobSeeker and to JobKeeper. The only reason I suspect that that occurred is that it was uncomfortable and difficult footage for the Prime Minister to see of lines that went around the block outside Centrelink offices in the height of the pandemic gripping the nation last year, and thus something needed to be done. Now, after 22 outbreaks around Australia and the only quarantine facility not to have had an outbreak being the commonwealth facility, Howard Springs, and despite our repeated pleas for a consolidated quarantine program to be rolled out across the country, despite our repeated pleas for vaccinations to be rolled out and to be made available and in fact to be implemented by the commonwealth through the public health network, we are continuing to do the heavy lifting that is required to address these chronic shortfalls in responsibility and indeed care by the commonwealth government. So there is a lot of heavy lifting in this budget, and there is a lot of directed expenditure to areas which are our priorities. What a shame that those opposite, despite all of their platitudes on the importance of tackling issues around mental health, are not prepared to acknowledge the need for a levy, are not prepared to acknowledge the changes in this bill that are necessary in order to deliver not just on what we have promised but on what Victorians need now and into the future as we recover from the very worst year that so many of us can imagine or remember. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:14): I am not a fan of taxes—I am not a fan of new taxes even—but sometimes there is a good reason, and mental health is probably one of the few reasons I would not complain about at all. Mental health is a massive issue in our society. We have had a royal commission and all these sorts of things into it, but unfortunately for those that do not like taxes, such as me, if you are going to increase services then it has got to come from somewhere. One of the things I want to see out of this whole thing is far more mental health services for regional areas. My first experience of someone with mental health issues in a regional area dates back to the very early 1980s when a friend of ours committed suicide. I could not understand why. She had a great family, she had a great daughter and things were going pretty well, and then one day she killed herself. I think I was 14 years old at the time, something like that. She had a great upbringing, no problems whatsoever. It just did not gel with me. But as time has gone on I have seen the issues in regional areas. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2001

There are all sorts of reasons for them, and I am not a qualified anything really so I am not going to go into it. But regional areas have their own issues, their own stresses, that city areas do not have, and a lot of the farmers themselves, a lot of the people out on land, are always working close to the bone. The ups and downs of the society we have very much give them—let us call it not an easy, solid run at life. Sometimes it is up, sometimes it is down, and quite unfortunately it takes its toll on people. If they need help, they need help, and the help should be there. After all, that is why we have governments. That brings me to a subject just as close to home, even though it is not necessarily a state issue, and that is emergency services veterans and their mental health. I was reading on Facebook just before I stood up that in New South Wales yet another police officer has taken their own life, and this is a tragedy. It is a difficult situation in that line of work to ask for help. It is a very, very hardcore environment at times. But when people need help, they need to be able to get help. They need to be able to ask. We always say, ‘If you need to talk or ask, you need to be able to get onto it’, and part of it is making people feel comfortable with opening up about their issues. Every one of these suicides is one that should not happen. We have people like the Code 9 Foundation and various veteran support groups. They need help. I read regularly about people in ward 17. It may or may not be a state repat issue, but these wards have to come from somewhere. I am sad to say I get the feeling that they are oversubscribed. I am sad to say that if we had more, there would be more people in them. But if there are more people in them, there are more people getting treatment, and I have got to say, as much as I hate new taxes, if the government wanted to pick the one thing that I was not going to fight over, they have picked it. Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (15:18): In rising to speak on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021 I cannot help but make the observation that we have here in Victoria a government that works on the basis that if you cannot lock it down you tax it. That is what they are doing. That is how they are destroying this once-great state of Victoria. We have seen the impact now of four lockdowns with the promise of more to come if they stuff up again, and of course we have seen an overload of new taxes from this government to cover a variety of their sins. I am somebody who understands the importance of good mental health. I obviously have a particular interest in that regard as to how it impacts those with autism and those families with autism, because they are very closely linked in many cases, so I am very aware of the need for government services which provide what is needed to cater for people’s good mental health. My concern is that this government is using mental health as an excuse to raise money. Now, if that is happening—and I strongly suspect it is—that is despicable, that is disgraceful and that is probably even worse than some of the things that we have seen over the last couple of weeks here in Victoria. The great irony is that one of the great causes of mental health problems is a collapse in the economy, businesses going to the wall, people losing their jobs. These are the things that are impacting and have always impacted very greatly the mental health of Victorians, Australians and people around the world. Yet we have a government that keeps giving us these lockdowns, which are sending businesses to the wall. They are sending businesses broke. We are seeing people losing their jobs in very large numbers. Yet they want to impose more taxes to pay for something that they largely themselves are creating—quite extraordinary. Some might say, as some of my friends interstate say, only in Victoria would you have such a thing occur, because quite frankly Victoria is not what it used to be. I well remember, having been born and raised in Victoria, having spent all my life here, apart from a few months when I was in Sydney—I could not wait to get out of there, I can tell you— A member: Gladys is doing a good job. Mr FINN: Well, Gladys is doing a very good job. Premier Berejiklian is doing a very good job in Sydney, particularly with regard to the Wuhan virus. Speaking of the Wuhan virus, I must tell the house of a letter that I received in response to a constituency question that I had raised with Minister Foley a few weeks ago. In that constituency question I pointed out to him that I had been stuck at home BILLS 2002 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 for six days after having a virus test. I said this was really not good enough and asked what he was going to do to ensure that other constituents did not have to go through the same thing. Well, he did not answer the question, which is something that we have come to expect from Minister Foley. What he did was from that point on give me a stern lecture about referring to it as the Wuhan virus. So he does not care about people waiting for an extended period to get their test results back, but you call it the Wuhan virus and he is out there looking after his Chinese mates, his communist mates. That is the tragedy of the government here in Victoria, controlled by the pro-Peking Socialist Left, who, quite frankly, as we have seen with the Belt and Road, are more than happy to put the interests of a foreign power, a hostile foreign power, before the interests of their own state. And if that is not an act of treason, if that is not an act of treachery, I do not know what is. It concerns me, or it did concern me until the Prime Minister stepped in and ripped up that deal, and I congratulate him most warmly for doing that—and not just on behalf of me or even members of my own party but I think on behalf of every Victorian, because wherever I went up until very recently people were very concerned about the Belt and Road. We have to wonder what Mr Andrews has signed us up to with regard to further belts and roads, with regard to further deals with communist China, because we know that he has signed us up to something. But like everything else with this government, they do not tell us; they do not bother telling the people exactly what they are doing. Mr Ondarchie interjected. Mr FINN: Well, in certain instances I think they do. I think they are being dishonest in fact in keeping these details from the people. We are seeing at the moment a lot of orders coming every day from the press conference as to how we live our lives, and when we dare ask, when somebody dares ask, for the public health advice as to what is the basis for these orders, well, there is no appearance, Your Worship. They do not want to tell us—they will not tell us—and that is something that is also impacting a lot of people’s mental health, because they are living a restricted life. Many of them are not working. Many of them have lost their businesses, and they are not even being told why. They are being told by the Acting Premier and by the Minister for Health—and it must be very, very difficult, in fact I know it is very, very difficult, to listen to anything the health minister has to say, but we are being told every day by these jokers—that we have to do this and we have to do that. But they never, ever tell us why, and I fully understand how this impacts on people’s mental health. It is quite extraordinary that they would seek to add taxes to a state which is already groaning under the weight of lockdowns and earlier taxes. It is extraordinary that they would seek to do that at the expense of the mental health of the people they say that they want to help. Work that one out. As I said earlier, only in Victoria under Daniel Andrews. I never thought, I have to say, I would ever see this again. I remember speaking in the other place back in the 1990s, when I was the member for Tullamarine in the Kennett government— Mr Ondarchie: I remember that. Mr FINN: Yes, I remember it very, very fondly. I recall speaking then about the jokes that were told interstate about Melbourne and about Victoria—for example, things like, ‘What’s the capital of Victoria? About 27 cents’; jokes like that. Victoria, wherever you went, was the laughing-stock of Australia. It was embarrassing. It was horrifying. Guess what, it is happening again, and who is doing it? Daniel Andrews, James Merlino and Martin Foley—that crew. They are leading us again into a period where we are the laughing-stock of Australia, and it is just unbelievable to think that this could happen twice in your lifetime, much less twice in a political lifetime. It is very, very difficult indeed to understand that. What people in the mental health field want is ongoing and constant support. That is what they want. They are not going to get it from this bill. What they want is a commitment from government to back them up in the research, in the work that they do in this very, very important area, not some excuse to whack another tax on people. And that is what this is—another excuse to whack a tax on people. How BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2003 much will actually get to the mental health field? How much will get to psychiatrists and psychologists on the front line? Who would know? If it is anything like this government’s previous record, precious little I would suggest, because this government is renowned for the redistribution of wealth within its own coffers. We know that socialists are committed to the redistribution of wealth, but here we have them redistributing their own wealth. It takes us back to the time of John Cain and Joan Kirner, when Gas and Fuel were paying the wages of the tram drivers and the SEC was paying the wages of the train drivers and it was all over the place. It is happening again. What we are seeing here today is a classic Labor con, and by God they are good at it. You have to admit this: Labor are not good at much, but they are really good when it comes to conning people. It does not matter whether it is over the Wuhan virus, it does not matter what it is— they are really, really good at scaring people, they are really, really good at conning people. And here we are in this Parliament today and you have to say, ‘Here we go again’. This is Labor. It does not matter whether it is 1991 or 2021, this is Labor. This is what we have come to expect from the ALP, and they never let us down. This is the way they operate. This is the way they do things. I say to those people—I am sure in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions—who are tuned in this afternoon listening to me speak that they have my heartfelt sympathy for having to put up with this government. There are people out there who have not got anything left. There are other people out there who are hanging on, business owners who are hanging on by their fingernails, and here are the government saying they are going to whack us again with another tax. That is the answer to everything as far as Labor is concerned: whack another tax on people. It does not matter whether it wipes them out or not, another tax is the answer. That is the Labor way. This is a classic extreme-left, tax-and-spend government. That is what they do. Look over the last six or seven years at how much money they have spent—the blowouts, the cost to the economy, the cost to Victorian taxpayers. Before Daniel Andrews sat behind his desk he blew $1.3 billion by cancelling a road that we still desperately need and, as Ms Bath said earlier, a road which in fact would now be operating if it had gone ahead at that time. I am sure there are a good number of people in both the east and the west of Melbourne who curse Daniel Andrews every day. Mr Ondarchie interjected. Mr FINN: Even Mr Melhem. Indeed Mr Melhem did agree, was very supportive of it, as indeed Mr Shorten was. Mr Ondarchie interjected. Mr FINN: Yes, Bill Shorten was very supportive of it. There are a whole range of things that people in the state are deeply concerned about. A high-taxing, big-spending government is most certainly one of them. But I tell you what: the other thing they are particularly terrified of is another lockdown, and this government is more than capable of delivering just that. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (15:33): I rise to speak on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. We could be forgiven for thinking that that is not what we were speaking about when we were listening to Mr Finn. This bill does a lot of things. It looks at first home owner grants, it looks at temporary exemptions and concessions for the transfer of new homes, it certainly looks at amending some of our land tax rates. It also looks at amending some of our stamp duty rates and, as has been predominately discussed today, it looks at putting a surcharge levy on our payroll tax for certain large corporations, a levy which will be hypothecated and directed to mental health in this state. This was absolutely one of the more significant recommendations from the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We know we have a mental health crisis, and certainly we have heard stories. We have heard testimony from almost every speaker today about that, and I do not think a single one of us has not been personally affected by mental health issues. Not a single one of us has not tried to help a desperate BILLS 2004 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 constituent get a family member or a loved one into help. Not a single one of us has not received tragic and urgent phone calls and messages from our constituents asking for our help. As someone who has sat on the Legal and Social Issues Committee for a number of years now, the number of times that mental health is raised as a symptom of other issues or as a result of other issues—whether that is misuse of drugs, whether that is homelessness, whether that is criminal behaviour, mental health is just always in the picture, almost always part of the problem, but almost always also part of the solution. So to commit to fixing our mental health system we have to find the money, and how do we do that? I do not like taxes. I appreciate I had a very good conversation with the Business Council of Australia. It was very far reaching, but one of the questions that no-one seems to be able to answer who opposes the increase in or the levy on the payroll tax is: where will we find the money? How will we respond to that recommendation by the royal commission that we establish a dedicated stream of funding for mental health? How will we do that?’. The business council were representing their members, and I completely understand that, and I think they represented them well. They also quite rightly gave me examples of where their members—Woolworths, large mining companies, large banks like the Commonwealth Bank—actively did help their employees with mental health programs within their businesses, and I commend them for that. But as I was thinking about it last night I was thinking, ‘Well, if I was asked to pay a mental health levy, if I was asked if I would pay a levy that would be some 0.5 per cent’—when I had a business it would have been maybe 1.5 per cent of my salary bill—‘without a doubt I would have said yes’, and I do not think there are many Victorians who would not say, ‘We need to fix our mental health system, and we understand it needs money to do that’. And as I reflected as someone who has run a small business—this levy is not going to affect small businesses, it is really only going to affect a few large businesses—I thought, ‘As a small business operator I would’ve not had any hesitation in supporting this’. And in looking at that and in speaking to the Business Council of Australia, they said, ‘Well, this will be passed on. The customer will end up paying this’, and again I kind of thought, ‘Well, okay’, because not a single one of us has not been affected by mental health issues. Not a single one of us has not been desperate to find a service or to help someone find a service and not been able to find that service. So again, no-one has presented another solution. Now, I do have one other solution, and that would be to look at the expenditure—and the incredible increase in the expenditure—on our prison system. Since this government came to power it has spent over $4 billion on major projects in the prison system, and sadly the more we build—you know, ‘Build it and they will come’. That could not be more true with our prisons because we are now at almost 95 per cent capacity in our prisons. We are now going to have to build more prisons. We are projected to spend another $2.6 billion on our prisons. We will be spending a billion dollars on a new prison in Geelong, $400 million on a new youth justice facility and $190 million to put more women behind bars, so unless we change our strict sentencing system, we are going to keep spending billions on prisons. As we saw in lockdown, as we are seeing now and as the Legal and Social Issues Committee heard in the spent convictions inquiry and will hear no doubt as we start embarking on our justice inquiry, we have an arms race on bail laws. Our bail laws are illogical, but it seems that one government tries to get above the other and tries to be more draconian than the other. Of course some people should go to prison, but it is ludicrous that as the crime rate has gone down our prison rates have gone up. We know this is because we are putting people into remand for short periods of time, not where they can seek rehabilitation, not where they can get into treatment, and in fact it has actually worsened our recidivism rates. You know what the real kicker about this is? That 53 per cent of the children in our prisons have mental health problems—diagnosed mental health illnesses—61 per cent of the men in our prisons have mental health illnesses and 65 per cent of the women in our prisons have mental health illnesses. If someone was to say to me, ‘Fiona, the solution is to stop building more prisons and to stop sending BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2005 non-violent offenders to jail’, I would probably say, ‘Well, that would be very brave of you’, because I suspect the other side of whichever side of this chamber would suggest that would howl them down. Getting back to the question of ‘How do we find that money?’, I know that I am not going to see a significant change in the way we deal with crime in this state. I know that there are a lot of supporters in here who would like to see alternative versions to incarceration. I hope that the justice inquiry investigates alternatives to incarceration, because, as I am laying out, we are spending billions and billions and billions of dollars on incarceration and half the people in those prisons have mental health illnesses. So how do we find this money? If someone had suggested—as they did—that the Medicare levy be increased to recognise the national problem we have with mental health, I think most Victorians, most Australians, would have supported that. I think that would have been sensible in recognising and trying to reduce the stigma and discrimination around mental health by saying it is like physical health and it should be treated in the same way. It is not, but it should be. I hope for a day when a federal government will recognise that and will actually see funding mental health services as being crucial as funding our physical health services. This payroll levy will affect 9100 businesses in Victoria. I am not a fan of payroll tax. I remember the days in the 1990s when Prime Minister John Howard said that with the introduction of the GST we would see the phasing out of payroll tax. That never happened. But I appreciate that state governments have very few levers to generate revenue, to generate income for their state. A payroll tax is one way to do that. Now, some people say that we should have broadened that payroll tax and in fact every business should pay a payroll tax. Again, I would say that it is probably a very brave government who would suggest that more businesses pay payroll tax. In fact in this bill we are seeing an increase in the threshold of payroll tax so less businesses will be paying payroll tax, but certainly those at the top end will be paying a levy to help specifically fund our mental health. As we know—and this was stated in the royal commission’s interim report—the economic cost to Victoria of mental health illness is $14.2 billion every year. This is $4.8 billion in lost wages, equivalent to 1.1 per cent of the Victorian economy, and $1.9 billion a year in cost to employers from lost productivity and workplace injury. When we think about the suicide rates and the cost to our families, why wouldn’t we be jumping up to say, ‘Let’s find the money to pay for this. Let’s do this’? The opposition were quite vocal in the media saying that they were going to lobby the crossbench to oppose this increase, and certainly I have received some correspondence on this, but no-one provided me with a solution to how they were going to pay for this and how they were going to turn around the $14.2 billion that we lose due to mental ill health by trying to spend $4 billion—and it is not $4 billion that this will be raising. Despite all this and even speaking to the business council, we are still competitive in payroll tax. We are still in there. When you look at the increase in the threshold, when you look at the discounts to regional businesses in Victoria, overall Victoria still sits very modestly in the payroll tax— Mr Ondarchie: And you’re okay with that. Ms PATTEN: I am not a fan of payroll tax, and I will reiterate that. I would have liked to have seen the federal government, when they introduced that GST back in the 1990s, say that we would start to move towards getting rid of some of these types of regressive tax. However, when we are losing $14.2 billion every year to mental health illness, we need to do something. We need to turn that around, and we need to work out what levers we can do that with, because the federal government is not interested. So we need to do this at a state level. The federal government has refused to even consider the idea of a Medicare-type levy for mental health. BILLS 2006 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

So how are we going to fix this system? I have suggested closing prisons and not building prisons. Now, I am fairly certain that I do not have majority support for that in this chamber. I know some of my fellow crossbenchers would be supportive of this. But at the end of the day, when I had to weigh this up and I had to consider, yes, the regressiveness of an increase of payroll tax versus the cost of doing nothing for mental health in this state, I came down on supporting us doing something and supporting us finding a specific funding stream, a dedicated stream of funding, for our mental health system that will build a better system going forward, that in the end will make us all the more productive and that in the end will positively affect and impact on our economy. It will also help the $1.9 billion lost to employers in lost productivity and workplace injury. I would briefly like to also thank Dr Bach for having a conversation around exempting universities from this payroll tax levy. I thought it was a well-considered position, and actually I took it to the Treasurer to discuss and talk through. I also had I think a very good conversation with the Treasurer about this, as I did with Dr Bach. I think the arguments around this were strong. We know that our universities have been under extraordinary stress over the last 18 months, and that is not going to change. We are not going to see international students coming back anytime soon. But I remember speaking to the vice-chancellor of RMIT some years ago, and he also suggested that their reliance on international students was not sustainable, that they actually had to change that model, and it had to change because they were entering into more and more competition from the countries they were attracting their international students from. I am not saying that this will provide the catalyst for that, but I did get a commitment from the Treasurer that over the next four years $206 million is going back into universities through the mental health fund. So while we are asking them to pay the levy, we are returning that in even more significant numbers so that they can be part of the solution, so that they can be part of making this state lead in mental health. I would just like to touch quickly in the few moments I have got on the other parts of this bill. Again, I would like to thank the Property Council of Australia, the Master Builders Association, the Real Estate Institute of Victoria and the many other organisations that did come and speak to me about the concerns about stamp duty and the concerns about land tax. I again listened to them carefully, and I very much appreciated how they came to their position, very much appreciated their concerns. As an MP who represents the inner north of Melbourne I am all too aware of the skyrocketing prices and the inability of young people in my electorate to get a foothold into the property market, and as the chair of the homelessness inquiry I am all too aware that we need more homes in this state. Again, how do we pay for that? We all agreed, and in fact it was a unanimous report, that recommendation 1 was build more houses—build more social housing, build more public housing. In fact even when we looked at the individuals who contributed to our inquiry, all of them put ‘governments building more housing’ at the top of their priority list. You can see in numerous surveys that our community wants governments to act in this area. Sadly, we have to pay for that. Now, I would love to see stamp duty go. I would love to see us move away from a stamp duty system. We are seeing jurisdictions like the ACT kind of wobble away from stamp duty. I do not think they are doing it terribly efficiently, but they are making the attempt. New South Wales last year quite boldly made the commitment to try and move away from stamp duty. Certainly I remember hearing the Treasurer say that this was of some interest and that they would be looking at this. They have not in this budget. But in weighing everything up—in weighing up how we are going to pay for the housing that we desperately need in this state when we have got over 80 000 people on emergency housing lists—now is the time to be building housing. Well, no, in actual fact 20 years ago was the time to be building housing, 10 years ago was the time to be building housing, but we need to do it now and we must invest in housing in this state, and that will cost money. The property council said now is not the time to do it. There will never be a time to increase taxes, so in weighing this up I will not oppose this. I understand that we need this. Whether I am proven wrong and we see this means people stop selling their houses—the real estate institute put it to me that they BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2007 will stop selling houses—or property developers stop building houses, I am gambling on this because I suspect that the market will still provide room for them to build houses with a considerable profit. We have seen extraordinary increases in property values, amazingly, over the pandemic. Of course we have also seen people who are a pay cheque away from losing their homes. Right now casual workers are not able to get any form of relief—over a two-week lockdown they can get $500 for two weeks, which would not pay anyone’s rent, let alone their housing—and through no fault of their own they are not able to earn a cent. We are seeing people on one hand seeing enormous increases in the value of the homes that they are living in and on the other hand we are seeing other people who cannot afford to pay their rent. So in weighing those up, and I think that is what crossbenchers do, and it is certainly what I do—I do try and weigh these things up—I believe that there is no reason to oppose this bill. Sitting suspended 3.57 pm until 4.13 pm. Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (16:13): The State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021 is the bill that I rise to speak to today. It is interesting that this bill does a number of things. One of the things it does look to do is to add an additional tax in this state to carry the challenges of mental health. I think everybody agrees that mental health is a very important issue in Victoria, particularly when we have borne the frustration and the brunt of this pandemic, a pandemic that is all about a governance failure by the Andrews Labor government. Now, mental health has been a challenge in this state for a number of years, and when we have called— as many of us in this state have for a long time—for an attack on mental health, we have meant an attack on mental health, not a new tax on mental health. This government has clearly misheard what Victorians were calling for. When Victorians called for an attack on mental health, they did not mean a tax on mental health. And that is exactly what we see today. Having a job, being productive and having a purpose are very important for good mental health, so why, therefore, are we putting a tax on jobs? Increases to payroll tax are a disincentive for businesses to grow, for businesses to create more jobs. I know. I remember when I was in business, both leading companies and running companies, I found it abhorrent that I would get extra taxes for putting people to work. And this government thinks it is an opportunity to tax businesses more. These costs of extra payroll tax are felt by employees through somewhat slower wages growth, through higher prices that are passed on to consumers, through super funds that are attracting lower dividends as a result of this, and by people who are trying to find work. This is the worst possible time to increase taxes. Let me give you an example. A mid-sized business with 250 employees, paying the average full-time wage, will pay over $60 000 more in payroll tax. A large business with 5000 employees, paying the average full-time wage, will pay around $4 million more in payroll tax a year. That is the equivalent of about 40-odd jobs. A large business with 25 000 employees, paying the average full-time wage, will pay over $20 million more in payroll tax a year. That is over 240 jobs worth. And what else happens is the university sector, the ones that are struggling so much with the downturn of international students and having to reduce their workforce, are being hit with another tax. This government simply cannot get it right. When Victorians called for an attack on mental health, they did not call for a tax on mental health. Businesses have worked very hard to support Victorians through this pandemic—a pandemic that was a failure of this government. They have kept people employed during lockdowns. They have reconfigured their supply chains to make sure our nation and our people are being fed. There have been conversions of production lines to make ventilators. Through distillers we swapped alcohol production for hand sanitiser. They have paid additional pandemic leave. They have waived or delayed debts and they have accelerated payments. Businesses have worked through providing hardship programs, supporting frontline workers and making sure in this digital environment that we are all connected. Business has worked hard. BILLS 2008 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

In my experience, businesses without a plan do a number of things. Firstly, they change the logo. They create a new logo, and Victorians have already seen the Andrews government create a new Victorian logo that cost Victorian taxpayers about $20 million. Businesses who have not got a plan paint the walls, change the colours, and then when they are struggling they look at the revenue line: ‘How do we get more money?’. What they fail to do—and this answers Ms Patten’s question when she asked, ‘Where will they find the money?’—is look at the cost line. And this is what this Andrews government have done: ‘We’re out of money. What will we do? We’ll just go get more money’, without turning their attention to the cost line of running the business of Victoria. So when Ms Patten asks, ‘Where will we find the money’, well, I will tell Ms Patten: you find it by looking at the cost line. But Ms Patten’s contribution was extraordinary and one that I thought for a moment might raise the attention of Dr Ratnam and Mr Meddick, because I thought at one stage we were still talking about the gambling bill, because she was clearly having a bet each way. But the gambling bill has come and gone, and people have missed their opportunity to have a contribution to that. Mr Finn: Very quickly. Mr ONDARCHIE: Very quickly. Ms Patten and others, particularly the government: how do you deal with the emerging challenges of mental health and making sure there are appropriate funds to deal with mental health? Well, you look at the cost line. Before I get to the cost line, let me look at the taxes that Timmy the taxman has employed in Victoria: a new stamp duty on property transfers between spouses—a new tax by Timmy the taxman; an increased stamp duty on new cars; a new stamp duty on off-the-plan purchases; a new so-called vacant home tax; widening of the vacant residential land tax to uninhabitable properties; retrospective increases in insurance duty for overseas-based insurances; a new annual property valuation to increase land tax; the cladding rectification tax; an environment mitigation levy; an increase in the luxury car tax; an increase in the land tax for homes with contiguous blocks on a separate title; an increase to the fire services property levy in 2015–16; an increase to the fire services property levy in 2019–20; a new point-of-consumption gambling tax; a tripling of brown coal royalties; gold mining royalties; a new tax on Uber and taxi fares; a new corporate restructure duty; an increased foreign stamp duty in 2019– 20; also an increased foreign stamp duty in 2015–16 and in 2016–17; an increased absentee landowner surcharge for foreign property in 2015–16, in 2016–17 and in 2019–20; a new city access tax for the West Gate Tunnel, hitting my constituents in the Northern Metropolitan Region; a new on-dock rail charge for imported shipping containers; an increase to the municipal industrial landfill levy, commonly known as the bin tax; the road occupation charge for construction companies; a numberplate tax; an electric vehicle tax; a new affordable housing tax, which was about windfall gains on rezoned land; an increase in the land tax on taxable landholdings above $1.8 million; an increase in stamp duty on property transactions; an expansion of the point-of-consumption tax on gambling to Keno; a 10 per cent increase to Victorian government penalty units; an expanded land tax on gender- exclusive clubs; today an increase in the wagering and betting tax; and here we are today with an increase in tax on payrolls for a mental health surcharge. Timmy the taxman will not look at the cost line, he just looks at the revenue line, and who hurts? Every single Victorian. But to answer the question for the government, who clearly do not get it when the question is asked, ‘Where will we find the money to deal with the mental health challenges in this state?’: well, you find it in the cost line. I can find it in the cost line. If Timmy is around, if he is listening at the moment: get your pencil out, mate, and I will add it up for you, because there has been $22.3 billion in cost blowouts in this state. So get your sharpener out, Tim, sharpen up that pencil and write these numbers down. The North East Link, a budget blowout of $10.79 billion; Metro Tunnel, blown out by $3.43 billion; level crossing removals, blown out by $3.3 billion; east–west link, blown out by $1.3 billion not to build a road, and they still laugh about us internationally because we paid $1.3 billion not to build a road; the West Gate Tunnel Project, $830 million over budget; the Victorian Heart Hospital, $414 million over budget; the Cranbourne line duplication, $251 million over budget; the Caulfield– BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2009

Dandenong conventional signalling upgrade, $248.1 million over budget; the Murray-Darling Basin rail project, $226.7 million over budget; Mordialloc Freeway, $223.2 million—I feel like I am doing the Royal Children’s Hospital appeal here, calling them in; Hurstbridge line stage 2, $168.8 million over budget; the Cranbourne-Pakenham line, $132.3 million over budget, the Ballarat line upgrade, $114.4 million over budget, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, $105.7 million over budget; the Gippsland line, $97.4 million over budget; the Bendigo-Echuca line, $84.3 million over budget; the Ballarat Health Services expansion, $80 million over budget; Goulburn Valley Health, $58.2 million; the Seaford-Frankston line stabling project, $52.6 million over budget; the Hoddle Street upgrade, $48.6 million over budget; the Frankston Hospital— Dr Bach interjected. Mr ONDARCHIE: Yes, plenty more, Dr Bach. The Frankston Hospital, $43.3 million over budget; and the Plenty Road upgrade, stage 2, $40 million over budget, and it is going to be 18 months late in my area of Northern Metropolitan Region. I complained on Facebook the other day about how the Plenty Road project is both over budget and going to be 18 months late and all the local community agreed how badly the government have done on Plenty Road, including the member for Yan Yean, who liked the Facebook post as well, so she agrees the government are doing a bad job out there as well. The Warrnambool line, $36.2 million over budget; the Casey Hospital expansion, $33.5 million over budget; the Yan Yean Road upgrade, $31 million over budget; the Fines Victoria project, $20.3 million over budget; the transport network congestion package, $20.1 million over budget; the future emergency alert, $18.2 million over budget; and the Ballarat bus interchange, $17.4 million. And it goes on: the establishing of support and safety hubs, $12.4 million over budget; $11.8 million over budget for the Frankston station upgrade; the V/Line fleet maintenance, $10.5 million over budget; Bendigo GovHub, $9.5 million over budget; Mount Buller water storage, $2.4 million over budget; Hallam Road, $8.5 million over budget; Huntingdale station car park, $6.7 million over budget; the Latrobe Valley GovHub, $5.8 million over budget; Monash Medical Centre expansion, $5.3 million over budget; Wangaratta health care, $5.1 million over budget; Ballarat GovHub, $4.9 million over budget; the Thomas Embling Hospital expansion, $4 million over budget; essential services to manage growth in prisons, $2.1 million over budget; the youth justice precincts—I know Dr Bach is very interested in this—$2.1 million over budget; and the youth prevention and recovery care service, $1 million over budget. Now, if you get your pen out, taxing Tim, and add those numbers up, all those projects that are over budget, it comes to—let me just do it here—$22.3 billion in cost blowouts. So when the government asks, ‘Where are we going to find the money to deal with the mental health challenges in this state?’, and when Ms Patten stands here and goes, ‘I’m not in favour of payroll tax, but I understand this because of mental health’, having a bet each way today, and she asks the question, ‘Where will we find the money?’, well, there it is: $22.3 billion in cost blowouts. If this mob, if this insipid mob—I nearly used a different word then—could only manage money, we would pay for all these issues and not have to burden employers once again. This government are hopeless—they are hopeless. They mislead Victorians. They cannot manage money for one simple reason, and that is that they do not think it is taxpayers money; they think it is their money to spend on whatever they want. And can you believe—and I still have people shocked about this—that ‘V for Victoria’ logo cost us 20 million bucks. This government should give it away—they are hopeless. I oppose this tax increase. Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (16:27): I also want to join the debate on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. The list that Mr Ondarchie just read into Hansard is an extraordinary list, and I am pleased that he laboured the point to the extent that he read out—I presume that was an exhaustive list; it was certainly a very long list—every single major cost blowout by this government, because it has been put in this debate, as Mr Ondarchie pointed out, that if we are to fix our mental health crisis, and we must, then that is going to cost a significant sum of money. I accept that. I had the pleasure in a former life of being an adviser to a very fine Victorian Minister for Mental Health, so I do understand that there is a huge amount of work to do when it comes to mental health. BILLS 2010 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

But the simple dichotomy being put between those who support a huge further payroll tax imposition on struggling Victorian businesses and universities and those who support doing better when it comes to the many Victorians struggling with their mental health is a false dichotomy, and I think Mr Ondarchie proved that point. The Treasurer when he stood up to deliver his budget speech engaged in good old-fashioned Labor Party class warfare rhetoric, arguing that the top end of town needs to pay for this additional tax, which he called a levy—this huge increase in payroll tax. He said that many businesses had done really well through the pandemic and that they need to pay their fair share—that is what he said. Now, I do not accept the proposition that there were many businesses who did very well. Every day businesses in my electorate who have been doing really, really badly through the pandemic contact me. Nonetheless, of course there are some businesses, especially some online businesses, that have continued through their own ingenuity to do well. I do not think they should be penalised for doing that. So at least there was a germ of truth—just a germ of truth—in the Treasurer’s logic regarding some Victorian businesses, that some Victorian businesses through their own ingenuity have done well. That is the germ of truth; I understand that. That does not mean that they should be crushed. That does not mean that a whole suite of taxes should be heaped upon Victorians and the Victorian economy that of course will impact large businesses, that will impact those wishing to buy properties over a certain threshold and that for a whole range of reasons that quite frankly are simply economics 101 will also impact all Victorians. With one of my hats on, the hat of Shadow Minister for Higher Education, Training and Skills, I was particularly concerned to come to an understanding over the course of the day or so after the budget that Victoria’s universities would be caught up in this tax increase. I was concerned and I was surprised. The Treasurer, as has been noted in this debate, was also surprised. We know because we have the transcript of what he said to Neil Mitchell the next day. Neil Mitchell said, given all of these tax increases in the budget:

Why wouldn’t I move staff interstate then? … By the way, universities, according to this, they will be paying extra payroll tax, won’t they? The Treasurer said:

Yeah, I believe so. Neil Mitchell said:

So you have got a new tax on universities? The Treasurer said:

Well, if universities pay payroll tax now, they will continue to pay payroll tax. Neil Mitchell said:

Yeah, and they fit into that area where they are paying increased payroll tax. Universities are struggling, sacking staff, and you are going to tax them more? The Treasurer said:

Well, I might make the point that this government has spent a lot of … and off they go. The Treasurer said:

Well, if they pay payroll tax at the moment … then they will have to pay the increase. Neil Mitchell said:

And they do, don’t they? BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2011

And the Treasurer replied:

Well, I think they do … That is a direct quote from the Treasurer: ‘I think they do’. Well, they do. The Treasurer did not know that universities pay payroll tax, and I am not going to condemn him for not knowing that universities pay payroll tax. There are a whole range of exemptions, for example, for organisations that have charitable status. So he did not know; that is okay, that is fine. What I would have had him do at that point would have been to back down, to do the honourable thing and to make it plain to universities and to those many hundreds of thousands of Victorians who rely on universities for their jobs— Monash alone employs 17 000 people in Clayton, easily the largest employer in the region—that of course they should not have to pay this tax. The Treasurer’s logic is that many businesses did really well out of the pandemic and they should have to pay their fair share. I do not accept that logic, but there is a germ of truth in it at least. There is not when it comes to Victoria’s universities. As a result of the Labor government’s COVID bungles both last year and this year—we are learning more again of course about failures in hotel quarantine just today—universities have been crippled. They are on their knees. Also the loss of international students has been a devastating blow. The Liberal-Nationals released a plan last November to seek in a COVID-safe way, in a prudent way, to at least start to bring some of our international students back to Australia. Other states—for example, New South Wales—have got on their bikes and have established processes to seek to start to get international students back. The Andrews Labor government has done nothing. The Acting Premier a few weeks ago released a letter that he said was a plan, but it was not; it was a letter to Minister Tudge, the federal minister, who has set out very clear criteria from the commonwealth’s perspective regarding how it is that individual states will start to bring back international students. There are 165 000 international students currently stuck overseas who would love to come back, and my personal view is that having international students in our state—noting the cultural richness that they bring—is a good thing in and of itself, but it is not the primary reason I want to see international students return. It is not the primary reason I want to see a plan to reinvigorate our world-leading university sector. It is because of the Victorian jobs that they support and they create—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Victorian jobs. But they will not be doing that over coming years if they are hit, in some cases—individual universities—with an increased payroll tax bill of over $10 million. Monash will pay approximately $13 million every year in increased taxation if this bill passes in its current form. Melbourne will pay about $11 million. Swinburne, our smallest university, will pay $3 million each and every year. Inevitably that will mean savage cuts to courses, to jobs and to research. And some of the very best research Victorian universities do is in the area of mental health. The notion, as Ms Patten said, that now the Treasurer is saying, ‘Oh, don’t worry; we made a mistake. We hit you with this huge increased tax bill by accident, but we’ll give much of it back to you’, is ridiculous. Clearly that is appalling public policy, and so what I will do is move an amendment in the committee stage seeking to exempt universities. Opposition amendment circulated by Dr BACH pursuant to standing orders. Dr BACH: As members of the house will see—and many members of the house have had this amendment at least since yesterday afternoon, when I circulated it to my friends on the crossbench— it is very, very simple and straightforward. So I look forward to having that discussion in the committee stage. Victorians have every right to ask: what are we getting for the huge, increased tax bill that we are being hit with, and what will we be getting for the increased taxes that will come our way should this bill pass today, sadly, as I expect it will? It is certainly not better services. I have responsibility on our side of the house for child protection and early childhood and also higher education, training and skills. Well, despite in some areas increased investment, Victoria is experiencing a dire child protection emergency. Last year 65 vulnerable Victorian children known to authorities died. That is a sad record BILLS 2012 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 in the long history of our state. It is an increase of 150 per cent since 2018 alone. There were news stories only today on the ABC of the government lying to independent watchdogs about its actions following an appalling data breach whereby a known child rapist accessed the information of 43 vulnerable Victorian children known to child protection. Two years ago officials of the Andrews Labor government lied to the independent children’s commissioner and said that they had followed up with each and every one of their families. Well, they have not. The Ombudsman is looking at this. I would encourage her, as I have encouraged her previously, to carry out a full inquiry into the shocking child protection failures of the Andrews Labor government. So we are certainly not getting value for our money when it comes to child protection. Vulnerable Victorian children have never been less safe in this state. I have asked a whole series of questions just recently of the Minister for Higher Education not only about universities but also about VET. When it comes to VET courses we are seeing a huge decline in enrolments and a huge decline in increases across all categories—a decline of more than 90 000 enrolments in just recent years. But most worrying of all are declines in areas that the government itself says, and I agree, are high priorities: women seeking to return to work, Victorians with disabilities and Indigenous Victorians. Over the life of this government in every single high-priority category enrolments and course completions have plummeted, as they have for regional and rural Victoria. When it comes to early childhood, we learned recently from new census data that engagement in early childhood services and in particular in kindergarten has fallen off a cliff under this government. Under my friend Ms Lovell, then Minister Lovell, in the years of the Baillieu and Napthine governments participation in kindergarten reached 98 per cent. Well, data just released from the government itself shows that only 84 per cent of Victorian children participated in kindergarten, and again, for those children who most need kindergarten, those children who are known to child protection, the figure is somewhere between 20 and 30 per cent—although we would not know because the government does not bother to collect or disseminate the data. What are we getting for these huge, increased tax bills? That is a question worth asking. It is a question worth seeking the answer to. On many levels the business of state government is not glamorous. On many levels the business of state government is the business of service delivery, and certainly when it comes to the services that I have particular responsibilities for on this side of the house, we are seeing egregious failures despite the fact that this government always seems to manage to spend and waste more and more of our money. My fear, if this bill passes, is we will simply see that cycle continue. Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:39): I am pleased to rise and speak to the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. The most important part of this bill is the introduction of the mental health levy. Mental health has long been neglected in this state, so much so that the government called the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. It was a revealing and in many ways very difficult process. The commission heard powerful evidence from people with lived experience. It became clear that mental health, and I quote:

… services are often inaccessible at the times when they would make the most difference, and the system largely operates in crisis mode … and furthermore that:

The system is complex and fragmented and, for those who do manage to get into it, difficult to navigate. People experience enormous frustration and distress when trying to identify the right mental health services for themselves or someone else. The royal commission made 65 recommendations to transform Victoria’s mental health system. It is heartening that the government has committed to implementing all of them. It was a recommendation of the royal commission that a mental health levy be introduced. Levies are not always the best approach to funding fundamental services. Ideally we would have a robust and progressive tax system that ensured sufficient revenue for the government to provide the services that BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2013 we as a society need, and when it comes to health, that includes funding from the federal government. However, what a levy like this does do is ensure a stream of funding to a particular purpose—in this case mental health—which means future governments cannot take the funding away. The history of mental health funding in Victoria suggests this approach is necessary. There can be no more excuses for failing to fund Victoria’s mental health system. So the Greens support the mental health levy, and we are pleased the government has levied it on big business. This is the right approach: to have the levy paid by those who can afford it. Turning to the suggested amendments circulated by the opposition on exempting universities from the levy, universities have been hit hard by the COVID pandemic and have been not just abandoned by the federal coalition government but actively undermined. The federal Liberals just do not care about universities and the people employed by them. Unlike other big businesses that will pay this levy, universities were excluded from JobKeeper—no big bonuses or dividends being paid out off the back of JobKeeper for our universities. Instead universities are cutting jobs. So we believe there should be a carve-out of universities from the levy at least temporarily until they can get back onto their feet. We need to protect jobs at universities, not put even more pressure on at this time with the likelihood of even more job cuts. When the federal government fails, like it is failing our universities, it unfortunately falls to the states to do what they can. In this instance it is to support universities and their staff at this very difficult time, not to make things harder for them. I intend to move an amendment to the opposition’s suggested amendments. I am happy for that to be circulated now. Greens amendment circulated by Dr Ratnam pursuant to standing orders. Dr RATNAM: The intention of my amendment is that it would have the effect of exempting universities from the levy for a period of three years. This will allow time for them to get back onto their feet, including restarting international student intakes. In relation to the other changes in this bill, it is the usual mishmash of some tax increases here and other tax decreases or exemptions there. We do not oppose any of them, but we would just say that it is time we stopped just fiddling around the edges of land tax and stamp duty and instead grasped the challenge of genuine reform towards a stable land tax regime that would allow stamp duty to be a thing of the past. We all know the rationale: taxes like stamp duty and payroll tax are unfair and inefficient and have unhelpful consequences, which is why every year in the state tax bill there are little exemptions here and there. But despite knowing it, governments tend to be too scared to even start a conversation with the public about how we could move towards more progressive taxes on unearned wealth to give Victoria a more stable revenue base and a fairer tax regime. It is time we did. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (16:44): I rise to speak on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. It is a classic of the left-wing, socialist, anti-enterprise genre: a short-termist, self-defeating attack on wealth creation. This budget would be damaging at any time, but coming after the greatest economic shock since World War II, at a time when recovery should be paramount, it is absolutely unforgivable. With a lust for taxes like a vampire’s for blood, the Treasurer is sucking $5.8 billion in new taxes from the productive heart of the Victorian economy. We can certainly award marks for thoroughness: stamp duty, land tax, payroll tax—he taxed them all. And of course for a Labor Treasurer the only thing to do with a tax is to put it up. This is a budget of tax, tax, tax and nothing else—no incentives for Victorians to work hard, to buy homes, to start businesses, to invest or to create employment and deliver services. The most charitable observer might just consider the Treasurer optimistic or perhaps simply misguided about how economics work. I am afraid I cannot share that judgement. To me it is clear that this is a cynical bill, which trades the long-term prosperity of the state for the short-term electoral advantage of the Labor Party. Examining the detail, at every stage we see a government which has run out of creativity, energy and confidence and instead resorts to its first and fundamental instinct: punitive taxes against wealth creation, an economically illiterate, historically catastrophic approach cheered only by the political support base of the Labor Party. BILLS 2014 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

First then, on housing and the amendment to the rate of stamp duty in the Duties Act 2000—amending upwards, naturally—I oppose the intent. It is a straightforward tax on aspiration, pandering to an ideology which craves punishing success. The new 6.5 per cent rate on properties valued over $2 million does not just hit the top end of town, as they like to suggest. There are 26 suburbs in the state which already have a median price above that level, and as the market rises the percentage of homes captured by the rate will continue to rise. But I also oppose the mechanism, using a tax which is widely regarded by professional economists as highly inefficient. There are of course substantial economic theses behind these critiques, but I enjoyed the catchy phrase of economist Saul Eslake, who described the Treasurer’s actions as, I quote:

… taking a tax that is universally recognised as being the worst tax in the armoury of taxes levied by Australian governments and making it worse. At some point we have to ask: where do we stop with taxation? The impact of these latest rises, it has been calculated, is that more than 40 per cent of the purchase price of a home will be made up of state and local government costs in fees, duties and charges—just think about that. Forty per cent is an extraordinary figure, yet it is hardly a surprise. We hear a lot about the 38 taxes this government has increased since coming into office, but how often do we note that 22 of them are levied on property. Surely even Labor members must recognise that we have gone badly astray to reach this pass. And what are the results of this massive market intervention—targeted and productive public spending, a plentiful new housing supply? Labor has been in charge for 17 of the last 21 years, so there is no excuse on that score. No, of course not. In exchange for 22 new taxes, 40 per cent property levies and countless billions in the state coffers, we have a $5.3 billion Big Housing Build over 10 years, which is failing to deliver public housing where it is needed, and average house prices which have blown out by more than 30 per cent in the seven years of this government. The commercial property market suffers in this bill too. Increasing land tax on properties from $1.8 million to $3 million in value is not just going to hit billionaire property moguls. A $1.8 million commercial property in many parts of Melbourne probably represents the asset of a small business owner who bought in decades ago, based the business they worked hard to develop there and who may now be renting the site to support themselves in retirement. Where exactly do Labor think the money this tax raises comes from? It comes from these landlords or the business to whom they rent the property or the consumers in those shops and businesses paying higher prices. At what point will Labor understand that taxation does not create wealth? It is a blindness which extends to the payroll tax. Surprise, surprise, that is going up too. A few weeks ago in this place I was pleased to support Mr Quilty’s motion to reduce the burden of payroll tax. In fact I think I went a little further than that in my speech. Ultimately we should abolish it. Any government attempting to create jobs with one hand and jack up this tax with the other is clearly terminally confused. There could be no better way of reducing our state’s competitiveness. Well, I suppose shutting down all businesses across the state repeatedly probably does even more damage, but barring that, this is about the worst measure the Treasurer could conjure up. Of course, ever the political operators, the Andrews government has inextricably linked this tax and the $2.9 billion it will raise in the next four years to the $3.8 billion it lists in expenditure necessary to deliver the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. There is no doubt that this is an important issue and that the findings of the royal commission cannot be backed by warm words alone, but it is a core function of government to provide this funding. It must be financed from general revenue, not a special tax—a levy—on productive industry. Dressing it up in this way may make it more politically palatable, but it makes not a cent of difference to the businesses involved. It is a feel-good charade which cannot hide the damage it will do to the economy in the long term. It cannot hide the reality from those who lose jobs or who are denied new jobs which might otherwise have been created, let alone an increase in their wages. Even the Treasurer’s own forecast in this budget acknowledges that Victorians will suffer a higher unemployment rate than the rest of Australia. How clever is that? Personally I am proud to be in a party which not only opposes BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2015 this rise but has committed to dramatically reducing payroll tax on employers, particularly smaller businesses, which after all are the driving force of job creation and economic growth in Victoria— although the way they have been treated lately, you would seriously wonder. The proposed payroll tax also brings me to the final point I wanted to make. My opposition to the taxing thread which runs through this bill does not just come from the different view I take on economics, history, political philosophy or human nature, it is also about competence. I might mind less about the vast tax burden, the degrading of our competitiveness and the damage to our economy if I were confident that the money would be well spent—but it will not be. It never is. The same carelessness which the Treasurer exhibits in failing to notice the universities would be hit by payroll tax in this, the Education State, is the carelessness and lack of competence which is the hallmark of almost all Andrews government spending. The budget papers reveal $22 billion in cost overruns on the government’s Big Build: the North East Link at $16 billion, not $5 billion; the Metro Tunnel at $12.5 billion, up from $9 billion; the level crossing removals at $8.3 billion, a blowout of $5 billion; and who knows how much more? Mr Ondarchie has given a wonderful list of the extraordinary cost blowouts, many of them in my electorate. It is staggering. This is a budget which finally buries the Education State and heralds the taxation state. It is devoid of incentives for hard work, education, investment, innovation—all the things which actually create wealth. It falls back on higher tax and higher debt. The Treasurer manages to rake in ever higher revenues—$5.8 billion more in this bill alone—and yet simultaneously sets us on a course to a record debt of $156 billion. How has he managed it? The only explanation is truly epic levels of public spending—spending which we know on this side of the house at least will not create a single sustainable job. This is a government which spends other people’s money—badly, I might add—then puts its hand out for more. I urge members here and the Victorian public finally to say, ‘Enough is enough’. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (16:55): I would like to start by talking about what tax is. Tax is a form of force, and I think that we know that when we use force we need to only use it when it is absolutely necessary. We have had a challenge from the government: if we want to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System then the only option presented is to raise taxes. Today in this chamber we have heard of many options on the other side of the ledger, on the expenditure side, which make sense. Mr Ondarchie had a great big list of projects which have blown out in cost. Let us manage projects a bit better. We can save money there. Ms Patten had some ideas around reforming our prison system. Let us not build so many prisons. Keep the violent people in prison and the other people, let us maybe not put them in prison and look at other ways of dealing with them. There are other things I am sure Ms Patten would support. Let us look at how we are managing our drug laws. Maybe that is costing us money too. Some other things: if we look at our public service, do we really need all of these things in our public service? We have hundreds of thousands of public servants, and the idea that we have to raise taxes implies that there is no room for savings in these other things, that there is absolutely no other option but to use force to raise more money. Other things: corporate welfare—this is something that I know many in this chamber pick and choose the bits of corporate welfare that they like and that they do not like, but in the Liberal Democrats we oppose corporate welfare outright. We do not believe that it should be supplied at all. Also, these taxes are brought up in a year when the government has forced many people in private enterprise—and we must remember that these are the people that supply the taxes—into poverty. Now they want to confiscate even more money from these people. It is ultimately ironic that they want to do this in the name of mental health, because I sincerely doubt that confiscating more money from working people will help. In fact if the government really cared about mental health, I doubt they would have isolated millions of people without properly balancing out the potential harms. I would rather that instead of trying to fix problems that they have created they did not create these crises in the first place. As my colleague Mr Quilty pointed out, tax accounts for about half of what many BILLS 2016 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Victorians work for. Who can blame individuals who choose not to work? Tax discourages Australians from working and saving. It impedes investment. Why would you work six months of the year only for some politician to splash it up against the wall of some badly managed project? The Liberal Democrats believe Australia needs a low-tax future at all levels. Smaller government would mean we would need fewer taxes and more money would stay in the hands of people who earn that money. I will finish my brief contribution with a quote from the distinguished economist Thomas Sowell. He said:

… what is your ‘fair share’ of what someone else has worked for? The Liberal Democrats believe the answer is ‘Not this much’. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:59): I rise today to speak to the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. While the threshold of $250 000 has been increased, I am surprised to see that the next threshold has not been increased—nor any of the other thresholds, mind you. I also think that the brackets should be indexed regularly, at least according to CPI if not more. So if the government who have just here increased the lowest bracket of $250 000 to $300 000, that is the land value, how many properties out there are worth $300 000? Apparently 60 000 properties. But every other single bracket did not get increased. Why weren’t the other brackets increased? If you did the lowest bracket at $50 000, why wouldn’t the next bracket increase by $100 000 or the one after that, $150 000 or $200 000? But no, the government chose to only increase the lowest bracket of land value from $250 000 to $300 000 and then look at any land value at $2 million and increase that bracket. That gave a wonderful, wonderful media release, but it actually did not help the vast majority of Victorians or give some equity to everybody. So, yes, I have some questions regarding the shared equity arrangements, which I will tease out when this bill goes into committee. However, I think that the changes to land tax and the windfall gains tax are disincentives to self-funded retirees. Now, many people do not like the volatility of the share market, and some people also obviously do not like gambling on bitcoin, so they prefer to invest in bricks and mortar, buying properties to provide a regular income and long-term capital gains. It has become more difficult for young people to buy their own homes, so there is also a trend for people to buy properties for their children or family members or buy properties to lease to their family at a reduced rate. Now, this is becoming far more common, especially in the multicultural communities. It is also interesting to note that only 20 000 Australians hold more than six properties. That means that less than 1 per cent of Australians fit into the fat cat property investor category. Now, that is not in Victoria, but that is all over Australia. But property investment is not the realm of high-income earners. In 2019 of those owning two properties, 39 per cent of them earned less than $50 000 a year and 73 per cent earned less than $100 000 year. The majority of investment properties, 59 per cent, are loss making. The average annual profit is less than $7000. Now, half of all of those property investors are under the age of 50. Mum-and-dad investors have supplied almost all of the 3 167 623 residential rental properties in Australia—about one third of Australia’s total dwelling stock. So those changes are not going to target fat cats. They will target mum-and-dad investors and the young people, people under 50, that just want to ensure their future. Economists have recognised the need to abolish land tax for years. And I heard Ms Patten’s contribution about what New South Wales has done in the way of abolishing land tax, and this Victorian government should do so also. I think I read an article in the Australian Financial Review that said that the Treasurer actually had been given a report a few years ago about abolishing land tax, but it would seem that he has ignored that report. Now, due to COVID and the vital need for economic revival, we have a policy window. We need to seriously look at the entire land tax system, if not the whole tax system—I am talking also about council rates and all of those things we should look at; there was a local government review on council rates, and I would like to know where that is at at the moment—and consider an overhaul of the entire BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2017 system rather than just tinkering with it. Like I said, the lowest bracket is $250 000 to $300 000. I would like to know where those $300 000 properties are. As to the mental health levy, this is to apply to employers with large wage bills, in excess of $10 million a year. In his budget speech the Treasurer said:

Many big businesses have continued to profit through the pandemic—pocketing taxpayer subsidies along the way. Yes, they did get some subsidies, including the federal government-funded JobKeeper, so they could keep their employees, so they did not have to lay people off and the employees could continue to feed their families. But what about the enormous cost some of those businesses paid to keep going? Many reconfigured their supply chains to keep us fed. Others changed their production lines to make sanitiser, face masks or ventilators and provide supplies that we urgently needed. They provided special leave, they waived debts, they provided employees with support programs to look after their mental health and they turned their businesses around to supply services online so things did not grind to a halt. Some of them took on extra staff. Woolworths took on 20 000 people who had lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic. To keep us supplied with food and drink during COVID they looked to take people from the hospitality industry and from the travel and retail sectors who had lost their jobs. Telstra and Optus created 1500 new jobs in Australian-based call centres due to the lockdowns in India and the Philippines. Victoria is already having people leave our state. We expect to have almost 400 000 fewer people by the end of 2022. The same will happen for businesses. Some businesses have lost their clients to interstate as they have been unable to guarantee supplies during the lockdowns. Some of our biggest employers in the state will simply look somewhere else to do their business. They will invest in new projects and create new jobs elsewhere, not in this state. A large business with 25 000 employees paying the average full-time wage will pay over $20 million more in payroll tax a year—that is 240 jobs. But this is not just about big business. It will hit large professional firms, our universities and our medium-sized businesses. Our universities were hardest hit last year. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in March this year 40 international students arrived in Victoria. In March last year there were 24 000 international students—that is a decrease of 99.8 per cent. And now they are to be hit with this, our universities. Even our middle-sized businesses with 250 employees, paying the average full-time wage, will pay over $60 000 more payroll tax a year. Businesses have been through enough in the last year. They have done everything to keep going, and they have actually looked after their employees’ health and wellbeing. Now the government is asking them to provide for everybody else’s employees as well. I agree that extra funding is needed for mental health services. The need for mental health is enormous. I just do not think that this is the way to go about it or that this will provide an incentive for businesses to expand or even continue their operations in Victoria. Now, before I close, there was some of the debate that I heard today that I wanted to actually add a little bit more to. Ms Patten’s contribution around ‘Yes, let’s just get rid of jails, and that will actually help our bottom dollar’ is great in theory in lots of ways, but it is not practical. It is not practical at all for the community that I represent and hear from. Now, respectfully, there are many in my community who go through family violence and who have gone through this time, and they would absolutely love the intervention orders that are in place to be not just be pieces of paper and for the people who breach intervention orders to actually get some jail time. Intervention orders are a tool normally used by the courts to actually get people to calm down and separate—maybe for 12 months or two years—but also they are used as a tool to make sure that people are not continually being harassed. So the need for our justice system to take intervention orders seriously and make sure that people get punished for breaching intervention orders is a must. That is what I hear from my community. My community also believes that we do need to look for another revenue source to actually pay for our mental health system. One of the things that I have heard from my community, especially around BILLS 2018 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 the conversations we have had about marijuana and cannabis, is they believe that people who consume cannabis and marijuana should actually pay taxes, because obviously we all know that cannabis use and marijuana use can lead to mental health issues, such as drug-induced psychosis, and it would be great for people who purchase these products to actually pay tax, just like people who purchase cigarettes and alcohol. Those taxes actually to go towards our hospital system and to all the other things that are needed to support those users of those two currently legal drugs. But my other problems here that I have heard in the conversations today and from my colleague here on the crossbench are around proportionality, fines and revenue. So for me, there are a lot of what you would call summary offences that I have been witnessing during this lockdown that have been getting people put in remand. Now, one that I find very interesting is the pastor who decided to have a service last week. All he needed was a fine. That is a summary offence. So Paul Furlong, who runs that church, is still in remand today. We have actually jailed a pastor from Narre Warren. So in one breath I absolutely believe we have to be proportionate with who we actually put into jail, but a pastor who just needs to be fined for a summary offence is actually sitting in jail today—completely wrong. What I witnessed on the weekend was a car pulled over because it was out of its 10-kilometre zone swarmed by police. That is just a summary offence. You take that person’s car details and you send them a fine. I find that completely not reasonable, not proportionate and not measured. But if this is a government that is relying on fines to help our bottom dollar and it is going to continue to go down this path, we need to really think about our system. If you think that the only way that you are going to get through this is big business and landowners, fair enough, but as I have said many times before, you have to look at a person’s income, because you cannot get money out of a stone. You cannot just have these blanket ways of getting revenue, or taxes, whatever you would like to call it. I think I will end my contribution there knowing that tonight we still have a pastor in a jail on remand. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:15): We have certainly covered the spectrum today, which has made it an interesting discussion. I will not draw out my discussion at all. I believe that colleagues have well acquitted many of the points, and I indeed expect many of them to be explored in committee as well. However, I would like to just address a few of the points that were raised today. This will nowhere near acquit all of the issues that have been raised in the chamber, but there are just a few that I did want to raise. I heard from Mr Davis something along the lines of mental health being too important to have a levy attached to it and that it should be just part of the regular budget. I do not follow that logic. I am not here mocking it; I just do not follow that logic. I think it is actually the reverse. The whole point of having a levy is to make sure that we have sustainable reform into the future, and that is actually a specific acknowledgement of the importance of this groundbreaking reform to our mental health care system. Certainly rebuilding our mental health system is consistent with our government’s commitment to implementing all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, fully acknowledging, yes, there are many gaps and many things that need to be rectified. This bill will introduce a new revenue mechanism to protect the long-term funding and future of our mental health system, so I would say it is very much worth having a sustainable mechanism attached to mental health, picking up on that point in the chamber. We all know at least somebody, if we have not experienced it ourselves, who has suffered mental illness. Looking at two other aspects that I want to cover in terms of the cost elements, the bill ensures the revenue collected from the levy can only be invested in improving our mental health system, so I hope that allays some of the concerns of Mr Finn. I am not sure it will, but I did want to go some way to addressing something he did raise in his speech. I was listening, just to prove that as well. Also the royal commission estimated that the economic cost of poor mental health to Victoria was $14.2 billion each year. This includes the cost of—this has been mentioned in the chamber—$1.9 billion a year to employers, with $1.6 billion in lost productivity and $300 million due to workplace injuries. It makes BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2019 very good sense to have a measured mechanism that is sustainable to ensure that we can absolutely overhaul our mental healthcare system into the future. That is what I wanted to say in regard to that matter as well. I promised that I would not speak long on this, but I did want to acquit a couple of other matters. Very much the reforms here are about creating and developing a fair and competitive taxation mechanism. This bill is designed to make the tax system more progressive, but I have heard some very extreme tangents and interpretations in the chamber, such as aligning it to the government being like vampires, which was interesting but not factual, I would have to say. Just looking at our record when we are looking at delivering tax relief for Victorians, in our first term our government delivered tax cuts to almost 40 000 businesses by increasing the payroll tax free threshold from $550 000 to $650 000. This budget brings forward the increase in the threshold to $700 000 from 1 July 2021, just as an example. There are many, many more examples, and I am happy to address them. But it seemed like the discussion in the chamber was trying to allege that somehow we are regressive and we do not understand the economy et cetera, et cetera, when in fact I think you will find that every single mechanism and every component of this bill has a very specific outcome directed for the benefit—the betterment, I should say—of our community. I was going to say ‘benefit’. Either way—benefit, betterment—a very specific and directed outcome. To acquit some of the concerns of Mr Quilty when he was saying that it is all about just taking money—yes, but the purposes of these taxation mechanisms at the end of the day are to invest in key services to the betterment of everyone in the community. People who have businesses have children in schools, people who have businesses can have mental health care concerns. They may need a hospital, may need other services, may need to use public transport, may need to use roads. I am just saying it is a circular mechanism at the end of the day. It is not about taking without giving back—and giving back in a very structured and appropriate mechanism when you look at education, health care and strong and connected communities. Just to finish off on this final point, because I promised that I would not speak for more than about 5 minutes, Mr Davis—was it Mr Davis?—or somebody was talking about the level crossings. I am like, ‘Please talk about our level crossings’. Do you know the amazing feedback that we get from community every time one of those level crossings is acquitted, not only in terms of safety and in terms of reducing congestion but also in helping all our road systems and also our public transport run more smoothly? There is a direct benefit to community. This is why at the end of the day we have to have some taxation in order to deliver services to community. On that note, I will say that I think it is laughable. You cannot say, ‘Oh, I really care about mental health’ but not want to pay for it and not want to put a mechanism in place to ensure a sustainable delivery and overhaul of a mental health care system. That is what we are all about. We said we would do it, we are doing it, and this is an appropriate mechanism to deliver that reform. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:22): I rise to speak to the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. I have just been listening to Ms Taylor—and quite an extraordinary contribution, actually—talking about circular mechanisms, talking about why we are having this ongoing tax grab to maintain services in mental health. Now, our argument has always been that, yes, mental health is incredibly important—we know that—and no more so than in this fourth lockdown. We have all spoken about this today and during the week and in previous weeks— about the impacts to the mental health of so many members of the Victorian community, whether they are small business owners who are under enormous economic pressures and the financial situations in families, where they cannot put food on the table, or people in businesses that cannot support their staff in getting their salaries because they all now cannot work under this fourth lockdown, because the support mechanisms have not been there. And there are the mental health impacts on children who are being homeschooled, who have had over two terms of homeschooling and the disconnection from their peers, from their teachers, from others. BILLS 2020 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

That very, very important part of the education process, of interaction and an ability for children to be able to be with one another through that education process, is not happening. Those mental health impacts are absolutely being spoken about by experts in their field, who know what the impacts of this COVID lockdown are and are doing. So when we are lectured by members of the government about the mental health impacts, I want to just remind them what this government is doing to Victorians. This bill is a tax grab. The budget itself was an absolute shocker. And of all the times when a government would be absolutely doing massive tax grabs on businesses that just need to have some positivity and certainty from government, confidence from the government, this is the worst time. There are far more eloquent and far more experienced people around the taxation industry who have said so. Read the headlines in the papers the day after this budget was handed down and read about the issues around why this is important. I know that Mr Rich-Phillips so eloquently outlined the technical aspects of the budget and the real issues around that, as he always does, and he will take it into committee. But I cannot stress enough that these taxation imposts on business, at a time when they need confidence and certainty and do not need more taxation put upon them, are the wrong mechanism. And to go to the point of my other colleagues who have raised the issues around the infrastructure projects, if they had been managed properly, if those budgets had not blown out, there would not be a need for this tax. That is our point. This government has a track record of blowing budgets, of mismanaging projects, and as a result there have been 38 new or increased taxes since the election of the Andrews government. That is a fact. That is not made up—not like the magic pudding where they think the money is coming from over there. That is a fact. And to think that that Premier of ours sat down on the eve of the 2014 election and said, ‘I give you my word. No new taxes, Peter’. Well, it is all an absolute lie. Thirty-eight new or increased taxes, and this one is going to have a very detrimental effect on business confidence. And for those businesses that actually want to invest in this state, why on earth would they? Why would they? So I know others will want to speak further on this. I am not going to say any more. But I concur with my colleagues to say this is the wrong time to be hitting companies and organisations with a massive tax hike to support something that should be core business, a core function of government. Mental health is an incredibly important part of our health system. It should be funded out of our core budget without having a dedicated levy that has no end in sight. This tax will last for as long as this government—God forbid—stays in power. Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:27): I am particularly disappointed by this debate today. I am disappointed in the first instance that so few of the government members have been prepared to discuss this particular bill and to somehow talk about the incongruous connection between payroll tax and mental health. I am secondly disappointed because this is not the way to debate mental health. The fact is we had the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. It came out with some very significant recommendations. This house has not debated any of that royal commission’s outcomes and recommendations. We have not sought to bring our experience and the concerns of our community to this debate on mental health in this chamber on a previous occasion. Rather, we wait until we find a way to pay for it as a means of actually skipping through the issue. Mental health is far too serious to be left to a debate such as this, which is more about a tax bill than about the substance of what we need to do as a state, what we need to do as community leaders, to address the scourge of mental illness—mental illness that is so significant in terms of the demand on our health system that we talk about; the accident emergency presentations; the level of crime in our community; the level of family violence in our community; the level of suicides, which was referred to earlier today by a speaker. All are aspects of mental health that we have failed to address at a helicopter level, that we have refused as a Parliament to engage in beyond some 90-second statements by government members immediately after the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System reported. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2021

I am also disappointed by the fact that we are talking about another piecemeal tax bill, because the big problem in this country is that politicians, all of us, are gun-shy about talking about the real issues in how we pay for services and facilities going forward. What we do not need is tax cuts here—tinkering. What we do not need is extra taxes here—tinkering. What we need is tax reform. What we need is to look at all of our taxes and to look at how we can do it better, and that is crucial for states in particular because the state governments have such a poor and inefficient number of taxes that they can use to provide what are very significant people-oriented services that also involve significant numbers of people in that service delivery. In some of this debate today there has been a connection made to overruns on building projects. That is capital expenditure, that is not operational expenditure, albeit that it does come down to the fact that at some point those debts have to be repaid and certainly the interest has to be repaid on them. But at the moment what we are doing is just adding the extra debt to the debt pile rather than actually trying to bring it down. There is certainly no doubt that we have more public servants than we have ever had before, and yet we have a public service that is essentially broken. And do you know what? That is not even my commentary, albeit I have said it myself as well. That is the secretary of the ACTU, who said it to Neil Mitchell the other day. Rather cleverly she blamed the Kennett government for it, which is showing some interesting time warping. But the fact is that our public service has been shown time and time again of late to be incompetent and incapable of delivering the services and responsibilities that it is charged with. Why do we have a royal commission into the Crown Casino? Because essentially the agency that was supposed to be monitoring their behaviour did not do the job. Why are we having royal commissions into all sorts of other things? Because our public service is not delivering. Why do we have a commissioner for nearly everything—a legion of commissioners? Because we do not trust the leadership of the public service because they are not doing the job, and because they are not doing the job we say, ‘Oh well, we’ll appoint somebody else to oversee it, to be an audit on our failed public service’. We need to empower the public service. We need to have the best leadership in the public service. We need to have public servants who have got terrific morale and are excited and competent in the work that they do, and for that we need to pay. But we do not need to keep adding people if in fact we are not getting the results. We need to be tackling reform, and a lot of that reform comes back, as I said, to tax. And it does not just involve the state, it involves the federal government as well. We need to be looking at how we better distribute taxation resources in this country. We have actually seen the G7 at the weekend tackle an issue where profits are repatriated to low-tax environments despite the fact that they have made significant profits out of countries like Australia. Certainly the Australian government has been running on that issue as well, but it has been as gun-shy as we have in the states about really looking at reform. Payroll tax is not the way to go. We all know that it is a tax on jobs. We all know that it is punitive. It has no correlation to mental health, and we ought to be doing better in terms of determining how we are going to pay for those services and facilities to get better mental health services, to get better public services right across the board and certainly to have more equitable and more efficient taxation systems here in Victoria and right throughout the states and territories as well as at the federal level. Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June: 1. It is my great pleasure to rise to make a contribution on the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021. 2. This is another important bill. 3. From the beginning of this administration, we have delivered on everything that we have promised. 4. People can promise a lot of things but delivering is what true governance is. BILLS 2022 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The Andrews Labor government has a strong record of delivering tax relief for Victorians 5. We have a long history of delivering tax relief for Victorians. 6. During our first term, the Andrews Labor government delivered tax cuts to almost 40 000 businesses by increasing the payroll tax free threshold from $550 000 to $650 000. This budget brings forward the increase in the threshold to $700 000 to 1 July 2021. 7. In an Australian first, we cut payroll tax for regional Victoria in our first term to support regional businesses, job creation and recovery. 8. And we are cutting regional payroll tax even further, down to 25 per cent of the metropolitan rate (1.12125 per cent), now from 1 July 2021, a year earlier than planned. 9. This will save businesses an additional $30 million, benefiting over 4000 businesses. 10. From 1 July 2019, we delivered a 10 per cent duty concession on the transfer of commercial and industrial property in regional Victoria. We believe that 2400 transactions each year will benefit from this reform. 11. Under our landmark Homes for Victorians package, first home buyers purchasing a house that costs $600 000 or less do not have to pay any stamp duty, while concessions apply up to a purchasing cost of $750 000. 12. Since July 2017, these changes have helped more than 143 000 Victorians crack into the housing market and have saved them in excess of $2.4 billion. 13. Many people across Western Metropolitan Region took advantage of this relief. Thanks to this package, they realised their dream of home ownership. We supported workers and businesses through the pandemic 14. The pandemic is unprecedented, and the impact on the small businesses was immeasurable. 15. We delivered the biggest business support package in Victoria’s history to support businesses to survive the pandemic and protect jobs. 16. In response to the coronavirus pandemic crisis, the government’s economic survival package announced a full refund and waiver of 2019–20 payroll tax liabilities for businesses with payrolls up to $3 million. 17. This supported more than 30 000 businesses, including immediate refunds of tax already paid. That was $550 million of cash back to the businesses. 18. Thousands more benefited from a full waiver of payroll tax for the 2019–20 tax year. 19. In the 2020–21 budget last November we introduced the new jobs tax credit, another Australian first. 20. This credit will provide more than $800 million in payroll tax relief to help small and medium businesses who re-hire staff, restore hours and create new jobs. 21. A great incentive for businesses to re-hire their staff and employ new people, and in turn the businesses paid less payroll tax. 22. The government provided more than $13 billion in support to help businesses, workers and the community throughout the pandemic. 23. These are some of the many reforms we delivered during one of the most difficult times in the history. Rebuilding our mental health system 24. I am also proud to be part of a government that has delivered some of the biggest and most important social reforms in the history of this state. 25. One of the promises we made was that we would implement every single one of the reforms of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. 26. This bill introduces a new revenue mechanism to protect the long-term funding and future of our mental health system. 27. We are investing in a mental health system that is modern and that can provide for the community today and in the near future. 28. Mental health has impacted the lives of almost everyone, indirectly or directly. 29. It is an important matter for the constituents of the Western Metropolitan Region. 30. Actually, I believe it is an important matter for all Victorians. 31. One in five Victorians have had a personal experience with mental illness at some point in their lives. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2023

32. That is 20 per cent of all Victorians. This is something which impacts many Victorians, and the support systems must be present. 33. I am surprised when I see people who are still not taking mental health seriously. 34. The mental health system that we have in Victoria has to remain up to date in the coming future. 35. That is why the Andrews Labor government has decided to take concrete action. 36. This bill introduces a mental health and wellbeing levy, which will solely fund the improvements needed for our mental health system. 37. This levy will only apply to businesses with more than $10 million in wages, nationally, from 1 January 2022. This will make up less than 5 per cent of employers. 38. Businesses will also see the benefits of our investment, as the impact of mental health will reduce once systems are up and running at full capacity. 39. Economic costs of poor mental health to Victorians is close to $14.2 billion each year. 40. This includes the cost of $1.9 billion a year to employers, with $1.6 billion in lost productivity and $300 million due to workplace injuries. 41. This is a significant cost that businesses are facing. Our investment in mental health will significantly reduce the costs. 42. The mental health and wellbeing levy is estimated to raise $387 million in 2021–22 and projected to raise around $900 million a year by the end of the forward estimates, securing dedicated funding for mental health reform well into the future. 43. We have to have a mental health system that is appropriately staffed and has enough resources to provide the needed support. 44. These reforms will take a long while to work out, and we have to make sure that we are able to deliver these much-needed resources in a timely manner. 45. This massive boost will create many jobs in the mental health sector. These people will deliver the appropriate care and address the issues our current system is facing. 46. This is the best way to create a sustainable mental health system. 47. We have to provide Victorians ways to address their problems when they feel their mental health deteriorating. 48. And I am extremely proud of investing money where it is actually needed. Creating a fairer and more progressive tax system 49. The Andrews Labor government has a record of tax reform that ensures everyone makes a fair contribution to the investments needed to help grow the state. 50. We all know that the brunt of the economic costs of the pandemic were mostly faced by the people who were least able to bear them. 51. The International Monetary Fund also noted similar trends. It is appropriate for governments to mobilise new revenue from those who can best afford to pay to support an inclusive recovery. 52. It is our duty to make and support a more progressive and fairer tax system. 53. The impact of pandemic was very skewed, mostly towards the population that is not financially prosperous. 54. If we are to aim for an overall recovery, we have to make sure that we do it in a progressive manner. Increase land tax rates for high-value taxable land holdings 55. From 1 January 2022, the land tax rates for taxpayers with taxable holdings above $1.8 million will increase by: a. 0.25 percentage points for taxable landholdings between $1.8 million and $3 million b. by 0.30 percentage points for taxable landholdings equal to or exceeding $3 million (to 2.55 per cent for both non-trust and trust taxpayers). 56. This measure will make sure that the taxpayers with the larger taxable property holdings pay their fair share of tax and contribute to the economic recovery. 57. It will raise a much-needed estimated $1.5 billion over the next four years, supporting our investments in the vital services and infrastructure that Victorians rely on. BILLS 2024 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

58. The vast majority of Victorians, most of Victorians, will not impacted by these changes. 59. Less than 6 per cent of Victorians even pay land tax. Land tax changes will have no impact on the family home. 60. The vast majority of farmland is exempt from land tax. 61. Only around 8 per cent of land taxpayers will be impacted by these changes. 62. The changes that we have proposed are modest. 63. The impact on $2 million of land holdings is only $500 a year. 64. We have had a long list of tax cuts for the people who need it the most. 65. An estimated 61 000 taxpayers will receive a land tax cut as a result of this bill. 66. We have increased the tax-free threshold for general rates to $300 000. This is a huge saving for the people who need it the most. Premium duty rate for high-value properties 67. From 1 July 2021, property transactions with a dutiable value above $2 million will be subject to a premium duty rate of 6.5 per cent, which only applies to the dutiable value in excess of $2 million. 68. This measure will ensure that people that purchase properties worth more than $2 million pay their fair share of tax and contribute to the economic recovery. 69. It will raise an estimated $761 million over the next four years, supporting our investments in the vital services and infrastructure that Victorians rely on. 70. The estimated amount will be raised by only about 6100 transactions each year. That is less than 4 per cent of dutiable transactions. 71. The typical impact is again modest. For a $2.5 million property, the impact on stamp duty is also less than 4 per cent. 72. Based on typical price changes over the last six months, a $2.5 million property has increased in value every single week by more than this one-off impact. 73. These modest changes are however very impactful towards the recovery of our economy. 74. The impact of these changes is significant, but cost is modest. That is a good deal. Supporting housing affordability and construction jobs 75. This bill also provides targeted concessions to support housing affordability, the property sector, and construction jobs. 76. To help Victorians get into the housing market, the bill will provide a stamp duty concession of up to 100 per cent for new residential properties in the Melbourne local government area (LGA) with a value of up to $1 million. 77. This will save buyers an estimated $49 million over the next four years. 78. We are taking these measures for Victorians to get into the property market … 79. … so that they have less things to worry about when buying a home. 80. In the 2020–21 budget, the government provided temporary stamp duty discounts of up to 50 per cent for new properties with a contract price under $1 million. 81. Now, we are providing a temporary stamp duty concession of up to 100 per cent for new residential properties with a dutiable value of up to $1 million in the Melbourne LGA: a. a 50 per cent land transfer duty concession for new properties for contracts entered into between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022 b. A full stamp duty exemption for new properties that have been unsold for 12 months or more since completion for contracts entered into between 21 May 2021 and 30 June 2022 82. The concession or exemption will apply to land transfer duty otherwise payable (excluding any foreign purchaser additional duty) and will apply in addition to any other concessions the buyer is eligible for. 83. To support home buyers and the construction industry, the bill also increases the off-the-plan concession threshold for the next two years. 84. For contracts entered into between 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2023 the dutiable value threshold to be eligible for the off-the-plan concession will increase to $1 million. 85. This will encourage off-the-plan transactions and help encourage new development projects. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2025

86. It will save taxpayers an estimated $3.4 million over the next four years. 87. The bill also extends the vacant residential land tax (VRLT) exemption for newly completed dwellings, from one to two years. 88. This will help property developers facing delays selling new properties such as inner-city apartments due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. 89. It will provide $1.8 million of tax relief over the next four years. Victorian Homebuyer Fund 90. The bill includes amendments to enable the commissioner of state revenue to administer the Victorian Homebuyer Fund, which was announced in the 2020–21 budget as part of the Big Housing Build package, from 1 July 2021. 91. Locating these functions with the State Revenue Office makes sense, given their ability to manage these transactions and the alignment with related concessions such as the first home buyer duty reduction and the first home owners grant. 92. It also makes targeted changes to the Duties Act 2000 and Land Tax Act 2005 so eligible buyers do not miss out on concessions merely because of the government’s ownership share or face inappropriate tax consequences if they choose to effectively ‘buy out’ the government’s share in the property. The November 2020–21 budget 93. Last November’s budget was about repairing, recovering and making us stronger than ever before. 94. It was about helping Victorians find jobs and the security that brings, taking care of the people that matter most to us, and building a strong economy and an even stronger future for our state. 95. Central to this was the jobs plan, because the Andrews Labor government knows that jobs creation needs to be at the heart of our economic recovery. 96. That’s why we set an ambitious jobs target—400 000 new jobs by 2025, half of them by 2022. We have already exceeded that interim target with more than 243 000 jobs added since the low in September 2020. 97. We are continuing to roll out initiatives announced in the November budget. 98. Our Big Build agenda is not only transforming our state but has supported or will continue to support 177 000 jobs. Conclusion 99. These are no doubt difficult choices that we are making. 100. Times like these warrant difficult choices. We have to make sure that Victoria recovers from the impacts of the pandemic. 101. Before the pandemic, we had the bushfires. 102. These circumstances are not normal by any stretch. 103. I commend the bill to the house. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 8 June: The Victorian budget 2021–22 will support an average of 38 000 jobs every year over the next four years, while also investing in the health, education and the infrastructure our community needs. The Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring that our tax system remains fair and competitive and continues to deliver for all Victorians. In line with this commitment, this bill will make the tax system more progressive, and create a new dedicated funding source for improving our mental health system, ensuring that those who have done relatively well through the pandemic—and those with the most capacity—contribute to economic recovery. It is now more important than ever for governments to mobilise new revenue from those who can best afford to pay to support an inclusive recovery. The past year presented many members of the community with much adversity and hardship. As part of this, mental health and wellbeing was significantly impacted by the events of last year. This is why it is now more important than ever to rebuild our mental health system and support those in need. BILLS 2026 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Indeed, the issue of mental health often goes unnoticed. In the multicultural community, a stigma and secrecy around mental health exists. Many members of Victoria’s diverse community have experienced trauma, displacement and loss. Yet there is shame associated with poor mental health. These negative attitudes feed into a cycle of stigma and shame, isolating and ostracising those suffering from mental health issues. It is an insidious, complex and destructive health issue, which requires an overhaul of the current system. This is why the Victorian government is committed to implementing all of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, including a new revenue mechanism to protect the long- term funding and future of our mental health system. Indeed, the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System estimated that the economic cost of poor mental health to Victoria was $14.2 billion each year. This includes an astounding cost of $1.9 billion a year to employers, with $1.6 billion in lost productivity and $300 million due to workplace injuries. Further, the royal commission found that a 15 per cent reduction in the level of need experienced by Victorians diagnosed with mental illness would deliver $1.1 billion in additional economic activity in the Victorian economy every year. A mental health and wellbeing levy will apply to businesses with more than $10 million in wages nationally, less than 5 per cent of employers, from 1 January 2022. The Andrews government is asking only the largest 5 per cent of employers to increase their contribution to funding government services, so that all Victorians, including businesses, can benefit from the mental health system reform. A 0.5 per cent surcharge for wages above $10 million and a further 0.5 per cent for wages above $100 million. For businesses operating nationally, the levy will only be paid on the Victorian share of wages above the relevant threshold. Moreover, existing payroll tax exemptions, such as for private schools, hospitals, charities and local councils, will also apply for the levy. The bill also ensures that revenue collected from the levy can only be invested in improving our mental health system. The mental health and wellbeing levy is estimated to raise $387 million in 2021–22 and is projected to raise around $900 million a year by the end of the forward estimates. This bill amends the Mental Health Act 2014, to ensure every dollar collected will be spent on the provision of mental health services. These reforms will support a substantial increase in investment in Victoria’s mental health system, transforming the way mental health support is offered in Victoria, with early intervention, a dedicated stream of care for our kids, and the recruitment of thousands of new workers. To help create sustainable jobs for Victorians and promote Victoria’s economic recovery and development, this bill is bringing forward payroll tax relief for 42 000 businesses. And to help create sustainable jobs for Victorians and encourage investment in regional Victoria, this bill is bringing forward tax cuts for regional employers. Around 4000 regional employers will save an estimated $29.9 million in 2021–22. The regional employer rate will reduce immediately from 2.02 per cent down to 1.2125 per cent from 1 July 2021; that is one-quarter of the metropolitan rate and the lowest payroll tax rate in the nation by far. In response to the coronavirus pandemic crisis, the government’s economic survival package announced a full refund and waiver of 2019–20 payroll tax liabilities for businesses with payrolls up to $3 million. And in an another Australian first, in the 2020–21 budget last November we introduced the new jobs tax credit. This credit will provide more than $800 million in payroll tax relief to help small and medium businesses who re-hire staff, restore hours and create new jobs. This incentive means the more these businesses re‑hire staff and employ new workers, the less payroll tax they will pay. This tax relief measure will be available for two years, and support an estimated 9400 Victorians back into work. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2027

The Andrews Labor government knows that jobs creation needs to be at the heart of our economic recovery. This is why we set an ambitious jobs target—400 000 new jobs by 2025, half of them by 2022. We have already exceeded that interim target with more than 243 000 jobs added since the low in September 2020. We are continuing to roll out initiatives announced in the November 2020–21 budget, including the $2 billion Breakthrough Victoria Fund to position Victoria as an international leader in research and technology; $619 million to assist Victorians looking for work, including $150 million in funding to support women looking for work as part of the Jobs for Victoria initiative; and more than $800 million for new jobs tax credits for small and medium businesses who re-hire staff, restore hours and create new jobs. This will continue in 2021–22. Education remains a priority for Andrews Labor government, with record investments made in our 2021–22 budget to support students, teachers and schools across the state. Indeed, we invested $1.6 billion for school infrastructure, including upgrades at 52 schools, building 13 new schools and additional stages at three further schools, and expanding six more across the state. $716 million has also been invested in school programs and support for our teaching workforce, including $148 million to establish the Victorian Academy of Teaching and Leadership, dedicated to the professional learning and development of Victorian teachers. A further $250 million is allocated in the 2021–22 budget to hire more than 4000 tutors to help support students following a year of sporadic remote learning. $167 million is invested to continue to roll out universal three-year-old kindergarten, covering the whole state in 2022. Furthermore, a record $86 million is allocated to the establishment of the Victorian Skills Authority to champion and strengthen the vocational education and training sector. The bill includes amendments to enable the commissioner of state revenue to administer the Victorian Homebuyer Fund, which was announced in the 2020–21 budget as part of the Big Housing Build package, from 1 July 2021. Under our landmark Homes for Victorians package, first home buyers purchasing a house that costs $600 000 or less do not have to pay any stamp duty, while concessions apply up to a purchasing cost of $750 000. Furthermore, to help Victorians get into the housing market, the bill will provide a stamp duty concession of up to 100 per cent for new residential properties in the Melbourne local government area (LGA) with a value of up to $1 million. This will save buyers an estimated $49 million over the next four years. In addition to this, we are also investing in the infrastructure the community needs, such as the $6 billion Big Housing Build to give thousands of Victorians a place to call home and support thousands of jobs. Further, this bill also makes a number of other amendments to align the tax laws with their intended operation. This includes amendments to tax laws to ensure that the correct lower tax rate applies for ‘schedule groups’ that contain a bushfire relief regional employer which has benefited from the lower regional payroll tax rate backdated to 1 July 2019 The bill excludes unit trust schemes from the definition of a ‘discretionary trust’ for land tax purposes. Additionally, this bill amends the Land Tax Act to ensure that the rules work as intended for land held by a nominee on behalf of a partnership (commencing 1 July 2021). This ensures that the land can be assessed to the relevant taxpayer and not to the trustee nominee. We know that when crisis hits, it is the government that is called on to provide a vital safety net for the community, for workers and for businesses. We know that investing in our people and the essential services they need is the best way to support those in need, create opportunity and create jobs. We know that we have to invest in public infrastructure and building the future to help our state grow—to help people get to work and get home safely. This past year has more than ever shown the vital role that governments play in supporting the community, providing the vital services they rely on, and providing a safety net in times of emergency. BILLS 2028 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 24 Barton, Mr Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Bourman, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Gepp, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms Hayes, Mr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Noes, 14 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Motion agreed to. Read second time. The PRESIDENT: While everyone is in the chamber, it has been brought to my attention that members during debates have been moving from one seat to another seat. I expect members to sit in their allocated seats. If you are not here, that is a different story, but when you come back to the chamber, please sit where you have been allocated. Committed. Committee Clause 1 (17:45) Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I request that my suggested amendments be circulated. Mr ONDARCHIE: Minister, in my second-reading speech today I outlined 37 new taxes that the Andrews Labor government have introduced to Victoria, and this makes it 38. I draw your attention to 28 November 2014, when then opposition leader Daniel Andrews was on Channel 7 news live with host Peter Mitchell, who asked this question, and I quote:

Do you promise Victorians here tonight that you will not increase taxes or introduce any new taxes? The then opposition leader, now Premier, Daniel Andrews, said, and I quote:

I make that promise, Peter, to every single Victorian. Minister, as a result of an additional new tax being introduced to this house today, did Daniel Andrews mislead the people of Victoria? Ms SYMES: I thank Mr Ondarchie for his question, which I reckon if we check the Hansard is identical to a question that perhaps he might have put to me last time I was doing a state tax bill. You are asking me for an opinion and my answer will be the same as it was last year. Members interjecting. Mr ONDARCHIE: Apparently it is not relevant that the Premier says one thing and does another in this state. Before the 2014 election, Minister, the then Shadow Treasurer, Tim Pallas, said, ‘Labor will not introduce any new taxes or increase any existing taxes to fund our election commitments’. Was the then Shadow Treasurer right? BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2029

Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, you are continuing to try to extract opinions from me, and it is not something that I am going to bite on. But by all means you are welcome to make as many statements as you like. Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Minister. Do you support—I am not asking your opinion—the then Leader of the Opposition’s view that he would not introduce any new taxes to the people of Victoria? Ms SYMES: It is not a question. Mr ONDARCHIE: It was a question. Ms SYMES: It is not. Mr ONDARCHIE: What? Asking you ‘Do you support’ is not a question? Ms SYMES: Do I support somebody’s opinion? Mr ONDARCHIE: No, do you support the statement? Ms SYMES: I did not make the statement. Mr Ondarchie, we have the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021, which is going to bring in additional resources to ensure that vulnerable Victorians can be supported. This is a really important bill. This is a bill in 2021, and you keep referring to matters from 2014. I think the world has moved on, and I would like to get on with passing this bill, please. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, ask questions on the bill, thank you. Mr ONDARCHIE: This question is about an additional tax that is being levied upon Victorians with the passage of this bill today. I ask you, if we can quote words that your own cabinet ministers use: are your ears painted on, Minister? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, I ask you to withdraw that. We do not like it when the government uses it towards us. Mr ONDARCHIE: I withdraw. Minister, the now Premier made a promise to every single Victorian that they would not increase taxes or introduce any new taxes. Is that government policy? Ms SYMES: Mr Ondarchie, I would encourage you to ask me questions about the bill, which I am prepared to answer. Again you are continuing with a similar line of questioning and the general pantomime that we experience at the start of debate on these bills. As I said, you are welcome to make as many statements in relation to clause 1 as you wish, but I am here to answer questions in relation to the bill that we have been debating this afternoon. Mr ONDARCHIE: In accordance with the standing orders I wish to make a statement rather than ask a question, which is applicable under the framework. This bill, the State Taxation and Mental Health Acts Amendment Bill 2021, seeks to introduce or impose a tax that will go to matters of this state. I make the point that on the 28th of the 11th 2014 the then opposition leader, now Premier of Victoria, made a promise, and I quote, ‘to every single Victorian’ that there would be no increased taxes or any new taxes introduced to the people of Victoria. The Premier lied. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ondarchie, I just ask you to withdraw your final statement. Perhaps you could rephrase that, please. Mr ONDARCHIE: Thank you, Deputy President. I withdraw. The Premier of Victoria, as opposition leader, made a commitment to every Victorian that he would not increase taxes or introduce any new taxes. This Premier is a mendacious leader. Mr DAVIS: With the committee’s indulgence, my questions relate to generic or to background matters and hence I think are appropriately asked on the purposes. The purposes of the bill are to BILLS 2030 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 amend the Duties Act 2000, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Land Tax Act 2005 and the Payroll Tax Act 2007, and these are to what my questions relate. I might, with the minister’s indulgence, just move through my questions, as I said, because they relate to background matters. The first question on stamp duty is: have you modelled the impact of a higher stamp duty rate on, one, home prices; two, new dwellings; and three, investment? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, thank you for your question. Because the changes affect only 4 per cent of properties, it is not envisaged to be far reaching in its impact. It is fairly obvious what the impacts will be. Mr DAVIS: I take that answer to be no. Two, will— Ms SYMES: You cannot do that. Mr DAVIS: Well, no, I think that is what you are saying. Ms SYMES: No, the Deputy President ruled last time I was in the committee that you cannot interpret my answer. I gave an answer. Mr DAVIS: My second question is: will the stamp duty rate be indexed with inflation and house price growth to prevent bracket creep? If not, why not? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, I appreciate your question, but it is not a matter for this bill. It is a matter for future policy decisions. Mr DAVIS: Three: the 2011–12 budget forecast that CPI will reach 2.25 per cent in financial year 2024–25. Is the government’s increase in stamp duty for properties with a value of $2 million or more really a tax on the top end of town? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, do you want to ask that question as a question that is not asking me for just an opinion? Would you like to rephrase that? I think there is a half-genuine question in there. Mr DAVIS: It is quite simple. The budget forecasts suggest the CPI will reach 2.25 per cent in 2024–25, and thereby there will be an increase in property values and so forth across that period. So with a value of $2 million as a threshold for increased stamp duty, is that really a tax on—and I quote— as the Treasurer said, ‘the top end of town’? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, the decision to increase stamp duty for properties with a value of $2 million or more is about ensuring that we have a fair tax system that is bringing in appropriate revenue to ensure that the most vulnerable who have had the biggest impact of the pandemic on them indeed are given the best opportunity to catch up. If you look at the modelling on the impact on a property that is, say, $2.2 million, the impact is $2000 in relation to the increases that are made through this bill. So these are arguably negligible amounts applied to people that are spending quite a lot of money on their properties, and we do not envisage that this is going to be a huge impost on those people that can afford this type of property. Mr DAVIS: Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on that matter, and I thereby ask: does the forecast $8 billion in stamp duty revenue for the financial year 2024–25 factor in the significant number of Victorian family homes that will increase in value over the coming years? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, I am advised that it is consistent with the normal budget forecast that takes into account many factors. Mr DAVIS: I ask also on stamp duty: will contracts already entered into which contain an option to purchase be included or excluded from this stamp duty increase? If they are included, do you recognise what increased risk this might have on the viability of existing contracts? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, this will only apply to contracts entered into after 1 July this year. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2031

Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Attorney. Can you also confirm that 50 per cent of houses in 120 suburbs will incur the stamp duty premium by 2030? Ms SYMES: I am not in a position to confirm that, Mr Davis. Mr DAVIS: So you exclude that? Ms SYMES: I cannot confirm the proposition that you have put to me. Mr DAVIS: Can you confirm that stamp duty revenue will increase by 13 per cent in 2021–22? Or correctly estimate it? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, I do not have it in front of me, but I believe that that is outlined in the budget paper and is along the lines of what you have articulated, yes. Mr Davis interjected. Ms SYMES: I have just said that I do not have it in front of me. It is in the budget paper, so I will have to just double-check. I believe that what you are saying is accurate, but I need to just double- check. Mr DAVIS: That is all of the questions on stamp duty. I have some questions on land tax which also relate to the purposes clause. Have you modelled the impact of a higher land tax rate on (a) home prices, (b) new dwellings and (c) investment? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, it is a similar answer to your stamp duty modelling in relation to the small number of people that this will impact. Therefore it will be reasonably obvious about the small impact on the people it will apply to. Mr DAVIS: I think I will have to agree to disagree with the Leader of the Government. Are there any efforts in the budget to address bracket creep, which is forcing small business owners to pay significantly higher levels of land tax even before the increases? Ms SYMES: There is an increase to $300 000, which will be a modest protection against that, yes. Mr DAVIS: What percentage of commercial tenancies in Victoria will be paying increased rates of land tax as a result of these changes? Ms SYMES: We do not have figures at hand, Mr Davis, but it is very small. Mr DAVIS: I accept you do not have them on hand. Could you provide those? Ms SYMES: Yes, we can get an estimate for you. Mr DAVIS: An estimated 11.7 per cent of commercial and 10.3 per cent of industrial properties would be affected by the land tax increase. These are the properties of businesses that weathered the pandemic. Is it really an appropriate time to increase land tax on these businesses? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, despite the fact that you are asking for an opinion, the measures in this tax bill are about ensuring that those that can afford to contribute to the recovery of the state are encouraged to do so through tax measures, because they are in a position to do so. This is about ensuring that it is a fair and equitable system, and we believe that for those that have been asked to pay more it is a cost that they can afford. A lot of people have been in a very strong position post- pandemic, and we are asking those people that are on a good footing to give back to ensure the prosperity of our state, along with the concerted efforts that the government will make in relation to direct investments. Mr DAVIS: I thank the Leader of the Government for her answer, and again we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I thereby ask: can you confirm that land tax revenue will increase by 15 per cent in 2021–22? BILLS 2032 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Ms SYMES: That is correct, Mr Davis. Mr DAVIS: With respect to the windfall gains tax, which I think is a very important tax for much of the development of land sector, how did you determine that a windfall gains tax would raise $40 million a year? What modelling was conducted? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, I would draw to your attention that the windfall gains tax is not a part of this state tax bill. Mr DAVIS: I will return to those matters in the budget committee, but nonetheless I think given the impact on property more generally, by way of comment, the windfall gains tax can be seen as part of this constellation of tax increases that are being imposed on property owners and the property sector. My other questions relate to the government’s reliance, or some would say over-reliance, on property taxes to underpin government revenue, especially given the market conditions. What is the government’s longer term view on its heavy reliance on property taxes? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, Victorian property prices increased 8.6 per cent between just October 2020 and April 2021. Dwelling prices across Victoria increased by 2.4 per cent. This is the largest six-month increase since November 1988. I think, as speakers in the house identified today, there are, compared to the federal government, limited levers for the state government to raise revenue even though we provide more services than the federal government, so this is not a new concept of using property through the tax system. The measures that have been put in place are counterbalanced with support for first home buyers, support for reductions in land tax thresholds, support for off-the-plan developments and support for investment in Melbourne’s CBD. The support that the Andrews Labor government has given to the property sector over many years is certainly well known, and these taxes are a balance to that. Mr DAVIS: The budget indicates that only $111 million of land tax relief to businesses is being delivered in 2020–21 and $149 million across the total period of the scheme, despite the government having promised $420 million worth of relief on 14 April 2020. Can you confirm thereby that the government has short-changed businesses of $270 million of deserved land tax relief? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, this is a demand-driven program that has not closed yet, so perhaps we can look at those figures when it has. Dr CUMMING: On some of the points that the Attorney has raised, some of the statements that she has raised or answers that she has laid down—one being around how people who can afford to do so in the way of property tax should be able to pay—is the government actually going to look at a way of making sure that people can actually afford to pay the land tax? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. I think in relation to that specific comment, it was in relation to talking about the increases in stamp duty on houses valued at over $2 million, and it was just the example that I brought to the house’s attention. The net increase to a house purchased for $2.2 million will be $2000, so a $2000 increase on a $2.2 million investment is the impact. Dr CUMMING: Thank you to the Attorney. I guess I was going to the point that you were talking about, how properties have increased in value of late. They have increased in value at 8.6 per cent, and I think you mentioned also a 2.4 per cent increase in the last quarter. So therefore properties have increased in value of late, but we have a land tax that actually is looked upon in the way of its brackets. Therefore there are multiple properties that have increased in value so they actually creep into the next bracket. When you are mentioning that people can afford to pay, I guess you are suggesting because they own a lot of property they can afford to pay. Well, what are the mechanisms to actually make sure that there is a lever in there, that the government actually looks at the ability to pay, rather than what is occurring at the moment? There is land tax. It is valued on the property, but the ability to pay might not be there. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2033

Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. And I would point out that land tax is not applicable to the principal place of residence. There are only 6 per cent of Victorians that currently pay land tax, and of that 6 per cent less than 8 per cent of those people will actually be impacted by these changes. We suspect around 40 000 land tax payers will experience changes as a result of this bill if it passes through the Parliament. And I just can confirm in relation to paying your land tax bill, similar to utilities and the like, there are the options for payment plans and the like for those that may be experiencing short- term hardship and the like. But, as I said, it is a very small number of people that it impacts and it only impacts people that own multiple properties. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Attorney, and I thank the government for actually increasing the threshold from $250 000 to $300 000, which is the land tax free threshold, but I wonder why the government has not actually looked at all the thresholds and why it has not actually increased those thresholds. Is there a reason why? Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, yes. So in relation to the people that we think will be impacted, that is around 40 000 land tax payers. As you identify, lifting the tax-free threshold to $300 000 will see about 61 000 individuals get land tax cuts as a result of that. Of course, the Treasurer and the Department of Treasury and Finance look at a range of options and would have looked at all of the limits and made suggestions that the government could decide were the right policy for this this year. Dr CUMMING: Obviously the Treasurer made a point of saying that he wishes to make the Victorian tax system fairer and more progressive. As earlier speakers today have mentioned, New South Wales has actually removed land tax. Is this government actually doing any work towards that? As well as that, from what I understand from the Australian Financial Review of late, this Treasurer only a couple of years back had a consultant look at land tax. I am wondering if the Treasurer is actually going to implement any of those recommendations from that report. Knowing what I do know, he still has the ability to increase the other thresholds. Seeing that people’s properties are increasing in value, no fault of their own, just because of the market, they might not have the ability—their income might not be increasing in the same way as their property prices are increasing. So I would be hoping that the Treasurer actually looks at those thresholds and actually changes those thresholds to keep up with, obviously, the property market increases and people’s ability to pay. Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. I think you have raised points that would be considered outside of this particular bill, but some of the points you have made I am sure would be potentially under consideration, and I will pass on your comments to the Treasurer. Mr DAVIS: Just some further questions coming out of the purposes: what are the guidelines for organisations to be eligible for payroll tax exemptions from the mental health levy? Ms SYMES: There are no changes. Mr DAVIS: So universities will not be exempt? Ms SYMES: No, Mr Davis. Mr DAVIS: With respect to stamp duty concessions for properties within the City of Melbourne, why did you only provide those stamp duty concessions for the City of Melbourne, when all sectors of the apartment market are struggling? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, obviously a lot of factors are considered, but the existing waiver has already worked to stimulate the broader property market, and this measure was targeted for the Melbourne local government area (LGA) to help revitalise the city and was predominantly focused at clearing existing unsold stock. Mr DAVIS: That being the case, or at least the explanation that is provided, why won’t the City of Melbourne off-the-plan concessions also apply to investors? BILLS 2034 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, off-the-plan concessions do not apply to investors, but the investors can take up the other incentives in relation to property in the Melbourne LGA. Mr DAVIS: Why is that? Ms SYMES: The government made a decision not to make any changes to the rules around existing off the plan. Mr DAVIS: Thank you, Minister. With respect to the general series of new taxes that have been applied to the property sector, the 2021–22 budget outlines $240 million of revenue collected for the growth areas infrastructure contribution in 2020–21, yet according to the Consolidated Fund’s receipts only $140 million of this $240 million was spent on GAIC outgoings. Can you indicate why, given the hit on the property sector, the GAIC which has been collected from the property sector is not being fully spent? Ms SYMES: I appreciate your interest in these matters, Mr Davis, but I am struggling to see how that is relevant to the clauses in the bill. Mr DAVIS: Well, I will return to that question when we get to the budget. Now, there are a number of health and education builds that are listed in the budget. How fast are these new projects going to come onto the market? Ms SYMES: Again, I was very firm with Mr Ondarchie about matters pertaining to the bill. Mr DAVIS: Sure, so I will return to that in the budget. Recent ABS data on the value of construction work completed revealed the value of construction work completed has dropped by— that is, minus—10.2 per cent, year on year from March, and therefore I ask: is it really the right time for another salvo of property taxes? Ms SYMES: In my previous answers I have articulated that this is a state tax bill and a budget that get the balance right, focusing on recovery, supporting our most vulnerable and ensuring that those that are in a position to support the bottom line have been asked to do so through tax relief. Mr DAVIS: That might be another one, Minister, where we just have to agree to disagree. International student enrolments have collapsed, endangering what was Victoria’s largest export industry pre pandemic and one of the main drivers of population growth. ABS data suggests this has led to a $370 million hit on Victoria’s building industry. With the border unlikely to open until next year, I ask in the context of these new taxes: is it the right time to be imposing new property and payroll taxes on the Victorian economy? Ms SYMES: Mr Davis, my answer would be the same as before, but in relation to your starting to stray into what I think is the university sector in terms of international students. In relation to the mental health levy, we are asking the largest 5 per cent of employers to help deliver a generational reform, and this will include universities. Since COVID-19 hit, our support for universities has been quite monumental: $350 million for the Victorian Higher Education State Investment Fund, $45 million for the International Student Emergency Relief Fund, $84 million to directly support international education trade channels, $228 million for medical research and $50 million in relation to mRNA vaccine research. We have certainly been standing side by side with universities and higher education providers throughout this pandemic, and this levy in relation to mental health is to apply to all of those businesses without any exemptions that do not already exist. Dr CUMMING: Attorney, my question is around the City of Melbourne local government area’s concessions around the increase in that threshold to $1 million. I understand that the Treasurer has done this for construction jobs and to encourage more investment in the City of Melbourne. Why weren’t other municipalities or cities looked at for the same kind of concessions? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. This is about ensuring that we can help property developers clear existing stock, predominantly apartments, and has the added benefit of revitalising a city which BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2035 has certainly taken a hit as a result of the global pandemic. The City of Melbourne was identified as appropriate for this measure. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Attorney, for your answer, but I believe that there are a lot of developers out there that would love to have the same concessions as the City of Melbourne developers as there is obviously a glut of apartments and due to the lockdowns and people moving away from apartments because they do not want to be locked into a one-bedroom apartment—they are looking either to escape to the regions or to move elsewhere. This issue goes across a lot of other local government areas in metro, and I am wondering why Melbourne City Council was given this special treatment and why the Treasurer did not look at the apartment market and all of the developers who have got apartments on their books that they cannot sell and move at the moment. Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, just referring to my previous answer, the Melbourne LGA was certainly identified as the most in need and has the added benefit of ensuring we can help to restimulate the CBD businesses. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Attorney. I do appreciate the government actually looking at the thresholds of off-the-plan concessions for land transfers, but they actually increased it from $550 000 to $1 million for home buyers and increased it from $750 000 to $1 million for first home buyers. I do believe a progressive government actually continues to look at the market, look at property prices, and has to actually adjust its brackets quite quickly and nimbly to the adjusting market to make sure that it is an attractive market in Victoria. For me, Attorney, I have asked this question in briefings, and I would like to know: with the land tax thresholds and the brackets that are currently in place, what are the amounts of revenue that are taken by the government in these brackets—the current brackets that we have? What is the actual breakdown? What are the amounts? What are the prices? And if you cannot do that now, I am quite happy to have that— Ms SYMES: Sorry, Dr Cumming, I lost you there. We were talking about off the plan, but that is not the question that you are asking? Dr CUMMING: No. Ms SYMES: You went from off the plan to land tax thresholds. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, could you just rephrase your question so the Attorney knows what you are seeking? Ms SYMES: Yes. I am happy to get you the data. I think you were asking for data. Can you just specify exactly the data you are after? Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Attorney. No, I was actually giving the government a compliment at the very start, and then I was leading into a question—sorry—which was more of a statement. I am sure that we are still on clause 1. I apologise. But I was then going into my question, which is still this: I would like to have the information around the current brackets for land tax and the breakdown of the income raised by the government within those brackets—for me to understand, and for others out there to understand—so in future we can understand how you could actually model that differently. I guess my thinking is coming from this perspective: that we are going through a bit of an economic crisis and we are looking at ways of actually helping people out there to be able to afford to pay their land tax in these times, seeing that their property prices are increasing because there are so many sales at the moment. Ms SYMES: Yes, Dr Cumming, I am more than happy to take that on notice and provide you with the information that I am able to obtain. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Attorney. Did the government look at other ways of actually raising a mental health levy rather than just payroll tax and increasing it? Were there other ways? Were there any other possible ways that they could have actually raised this mental health levy? BILLS 2036 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, as you will appreciate, it was a recommendation from the royal commission, which made a direct recommendation in relation to separate revenue raising for a mental health levy, and the decision to apply it to payroll tax was the one that was deemed most appropriate and most simple to implement. Of course other models were looked at. I am not able to go through those in detail, but the government certainly was provided with options, and this was deemed most appropriate. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. Ms TAYLOR: I move:

That the dinner break that is scheduled for 6.30 be suspended. Motion agreed to. Mrs McARTHUR: Attorney, does the government believe it is appropriate to be funding mental health support through a tax that will be directly killing the jobs of employees who, as a result, are likely to need the mental health support you are seeking to fund? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mrs McArthur. I take a contrary view to you. My view would be that mental ill health is unfortunately very common in our society. I heard quite a few people’s contributions today about the fact that their experiences have been personally impacted. I certainly have not avoided the pain of watching people suffer with mental illness, and indeed I have certainly lost family members to suicide. My firm belief is that mental illness causes enormous pain and enormous disruption to community and business, and an investment from business by way of payroll tax will actually benefit them through being able to provide additional services, targeted support, particularly in regional Victoria, to ensure that people are supported so that they are not taking days off work, so that they are not ending up in hospital and indeed they are not dying. I think that this is a fantastic investment that needs to be done. It could have been done sooner, and I hope that it saves lives and keeps people at work and ultimately is actually an economic benefit. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. Has the government been informed of any businesses either directly or indirectly who will be leaving Victoria because of this new tax on business and jobs? Ms SYMES: No. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. Has the government modelled how many jobs are likely to be lost in Victoria as a result of this new levy? Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, only around 5 per cent of employers in Victoria will pay the levy. Only those businesses with Victorian wages and national payrolls over $10 million per year will be asked to contribute to this. This is an investment against a scourge on society. It will help businesses in the long run. It will help community in the long run. It will help families in the long run. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. How many businesses impacted by the new Victorian mental health levy also have business premises or offices in other states? Ms SYMES: I do not know the answer to that, Mrs McArthur. Of course, because we are looking at the top 5 per cent of businesses in Victoria, it is likely to capture your multinationals and your large organisations that operate across borders, but I can confirm that businesses that operate nationally will only pay the levy on the Victorian share of their wages above the threshold. For example, a business that operates in Victoria and New South Wales that has $6 million in wages in each state and therefore has total taxable wages of $12 million—above the threshold—because only half of their wages are in Victoria, they will pay the levy only on half of the $2 million that is above the $10 million threshold. That is $1 million. And for clarity, the mental health and wellbeing levy for a business in that example would be $5000. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2037

Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. Can you confirm which stakeholders you consulted to introduce this bill in terms of the businesses affected or industry groups? Ms SYMES: Do you mean the bill or the mental health levy? Mrs McARTHUR: Sorry, Attorney—the mental health levy. Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, as you would appreciate, this was a recommendation coming out of the royal commission into mental health. The Treasurer and government ministers consult regularly with business, industry and stakeholders, and this is an initiative that has been well canvassed but announced in the budget and obviously will continue to be subject to consultation as it rolls out. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. Attorney, can you outline how this money will be spent and how it will translate into a reduction in mental illness and a better outcome for mental health? Ms SYMES: Thank you, Mrs McArthur, and we are straying a little bit into the mental health portfolio in terms of the services and programs and things that would be delivered. Obviously there are a lot of school programs that are being looked at. Mental health practitioners in schools is something that I am particularly proud of that this government has delivered. I can confirm that the money raised by the mental health levy from businesses will not meet the entire expenditure of the government’s efforts in relation to mental health. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. If you say this is going to benefit business through less time off work and so on, what measures will be used for this money that you are raising from business to ensure that what you are advocating will happen? Ms SYMES: Well, Mrs McArthur, it is the promise to the Victorian people, and the reason that we are creating an additional revenue stream is to definitely demonstrate that we are committed to making a difference to the lives of Victorians through better mental health support, whether that is through access to health providers, counsellors, family support, suicide prevention or education programs. There is a raft of initiatives that are in place. I know a lot of businesses take this very seriously, from my resources hat perspective. Mental health is the number one concern for the health and wellbeing of their workforce, and they are always after support to look at different initiatives to look after the mental health of their workforce. So I think that a lot of businesses are really keen to care for their staff and will be looking for support from government as we are able to ramp up our response to fix what we have come to know, and I do not think it was a surprise to anyone, with the findings of the royal commission, that we have a broken system—that people fall through the cracks, people die. This is a government that is committed to making sure that we can do everything we can to ensure that our investments in mental health make a real difference. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. Attorney, you have been in government for 17 of the last 20 years, so clearly— Ms Symes: I have? Mrs McARTHUR: Sorry, you have not, but your party has. Clearly the outcomes that you have been requiring in mental health have not been met, hence the fact that you now seek to impose a new levy on Victorians to pay for this supposedly new form of funding for mental health. Why have you failed in your delivery of mental health care for the last 17 years, and how can we be assured that this extra money alone will fix your delivery of mental health care? Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, we are straying away from the contents of this state tax bill. However, I would encourage you to review the royal commission report. We had a royal commission into mental health because we wanted to understand why we were not getting results as a government or as a community or a society to ensure that people were not suffering the effects of mental health issues, and indeed our suicide rates are depressing, to say the least. We knew that the system did not work. We wanted to get to the bottom of that. We did not shy away from saying that things were not right. BILLS 2038 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

We got a royal commission report that demonstrates that the system is broken. There are numerous recommendations in there that the government has committed to implementing. That is going to make a real difference, and that comes with a cost. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Attorney. We have had 169 days and counting I think of lockdown in this state, which has severely impacted the lives of many Victorians and especially has caused very serious mental health issues. What extra impact has your government’s decision to lock down the state had on mental health? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs McArthur, I am sorry, it is not a tax issue, so it is not relevant to the bill. You need to make your questions relevant to the bill. Mrs McARTHUR: Thank you, Deputy President. I apologise, Attorney. How much extra money is going to be needed out of this levy to fund the effects of mental illness caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns in the last 15 months? Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, the royal commission estimated that the economic cost of poor mental health to Victoria was around $14 billion a year. This includes a cost of $1.9 billion a year to employers, with $1.6 billion in lost productivity and $300 million due to workplace injuries. There is no denying that the impact of mental health on businesses and the community is immense, which is why we are committed to making a difference, which is why we are committed to raising revenue to ensure that appropriate funds can be attributed to fixing this broken system. Dr CUMMING: My question to the Attorney is this: with the creation of the mental health and wellbeing levy, which is only going to be subject to large businesses over $10 million—and there are exemptions in place for private schools, hospitals, charities and local councils—why didn’t the government actually look at universities? What I can understand from this mental health and wellbeing levy is that by increasing payroll taxes you are going to actually raise $387 million in 2021–22 and then that is going to almost double. But without actually putting the investment in making sure that we have got more mental health workers in our universities, that there are more people studying counselling or psychology and the like, which are going to be four, six, eight years away, I really struggle to understand why you did not actually look at the exemption of universities, seeing that one of the things that has been identified is actually trained professionals—more trained professionals— not just buildings. It just seems to be contradictory that you actually have not exempted universities or anyone—TAFE—to be able to make sure that we have actually got the counsellors, the psychiatrists, the psychologists and all the other allied health people that we actually need. Ms SYMES: Thank you, Dr Cumming. There are no changes to the existing payroll base in relation to those organisations that are exempt, like charities and the like— Dr Cumming interjected. Ms SYMES: No, they are not exempted by this piece of legislation. They already had pre-existing exemption, so there are no changes in relation to that. To ensure a system that has reduced compliance costs and supports the integrity of the levy, the further exemptions were not deemed appropriate in this case. In relation to the university sector, of course the government recognises that they have been hit hard by the pandemic, particularly in relation to the continued closure of international borders. That is why we have invested more than $1 billion of support in recent times, which I went through earlier. This is a support package that far exceeds any obligations that the universities will face under a mental health and wellbeing levy, and of course the government recognises that until the vaccine rollout is complete and international borders can reopen, university business models will certainly continue to be constrained. The Minister for Higher Education and the Treasurer have regular meetings with vice- chancellors, and they will continue to work with them through the broader challenges they face and help them and work with them towards a stronger setting in due course. This is a levy that is applying BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2039 across the board to those employers that meet the threshold of, as you identified, more than $10 million a year. Dr CUMMING: I just want to make sure, on the record: obviously the royal commission recommended to design a levy of some description, but the government have actually chosen to target payroll tax rather than looking at other ways of having income streams—looking at their own projects and making sure there are savings within there and also making sure of the amount of bureaucrats they actually employ, so looking internally to find savings rather than this possible levy. From my community there is one outstanding question, and this is straying off into the windfall gains tax. They are wondering how that windfall gains tax actually interacts with the growth areas infrastructure charge and other infrastructure charging regimes and planning controls seeing as there are a lot of growth areas. My member councils are concerned about how that windfall tax is actually working with the growth areas infrastructure charge and those developers in those particular areas. Ms SYMES: Dr Cumming, I appreciate your question. I will point out that there is no windfall gains tax in the tax bill. However, to answer your question, the GAIC and windfall gains tax are separate and will not apply to the same parcels of land. Mrs McARTHUR: Attorney, I just want to go to land tax. It has been brought to my attention that a family-owned hotel in Brighton has just received a land tax bill of $260 000 despite being closed for most of last year and now closed again. I am wondering how these new taxes will affect other freehold family businesses in hospitality and tourism who are facing the same issues. Ms SYMES: Mrs McArthur, it is a little bit difficult for me to respond to a specific example. What I did articulate before is there are a small number of Victorians that pay land tax—I think 6 per cent— and only 8 per cent of that 6 per cent are going to see any impact through these changes to their land tax bill. So there is only a very small cohort that will be impacted at all as a result of this bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind members that under sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution Act 1975 the Council does not have the power to make amendments to certain clauses of the bill that impose a tax or make appropriation from the Consolidated Fund. No question will be put on these clauses, and any proposed amendments must be in the form of a suggested amendment to the Assembly. Standing order 14.15 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments. No question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2). Clause 2 (18:49) Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: I move:

1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly— Clause 2, line 2, after “and 4” insert “and 5”. 2. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly— Clause 2, after line 7 insert— “(4) Division 5 of Part 6 comes into operation on 1 July 2023.”. These amendments are a test for my remaining amendments. The purpose of this suite of amendments is to raise the payroll tax free threshold from the planned $700 000 to $1.6 million and to provide a taper-out rate up to $2 million, which will allow for payroll tax savings for a business with a payroll of up to $1.6 million of around $43 000, tapering off to savings of approximately $4000 for a business with a payroll of $2 million. We believe this is a sensible initiative in the current environment. It fits the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition at the beginning of May that we would support a small business payroll tax cut by way of raising the threshold, and therefore I move these first two amendments as a test for the remaining suite of amendments, which would deliver that increase in the payroll tax threshold. BILLS 2040 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Ms SYMES: The government will not be supporting Mr Rich-Phillips’s amendments. As I have articulated a couple of times during the debate, this is a well-balanced tax framework that the government considers is appropriate, and on that basis we will not be supporting the amendments. Committee divided on suggested amendments:

Ayes, 15 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr McArthur, Mrs Bach, Dr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bath, Ms Grimley, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Crozier, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Cumming, Dr Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Noes, 23 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Bourman, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Elasmar, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Erdogan, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Garrett, Ms Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Gepp, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms Hayes, Mr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Suggested amendments negatived. No question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2). Clauses 3 to 10—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2). Clauses 11 to 24 agreed to. Clauses 25 to 68—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2). Suggested new clause (18:59) Dr BACH: I move:

1. Suggested amendment to the Legislative Assembly— Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 68— ‘68A New clause 16B of Schedule 2 inserted After clause 16A of Schedule 2 to the Payroll Tax Act 2007 insert— “16B Universities exempt from mental health and wellbeing surcharge (1) Despite anything to the contrary in this Act, a university is not liable to pay the mental health and wellbeing surcharge on any wages paid or payable by it. (2) In this clause— mental health and wellbeing surcharge has the same meaning as in clause 1 of Schedule 1; university has the same meaning as in the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.”.’. I do not think I need to say much in order to further clarify the coalition’s position when it comes to universities. The government has told us that the tax regime to be introduced by this bill, should it pass, is well balanced and is targeted specifically at the top end of town—to those who have done well out of the pandemic. That does not apply to universities. They should be exempt. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: At this point I invite Dr Ratnam to move her amendment to Dr Bach’s suggested amendment, and then we can go to questions on both. BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2041

Dr RATNAM: I move:

1. In proposed new clause 68A, in section 16B(1) that is to be inserted, after “by it” insert “for the period beginning on 1 January 2022 and ending on 31 December 2024”. As I canvassed in my second-reading speech, the Greens acknowledge that universities have done it really tough during the COVID pandemic, primarily due to the abandonment of universities by the federal government, who have provided no support to them and consistently and constantly undermine universities and continue to do so. But we do know universities are doing it tough. When federal governments fail, it is up to state governments and every other level of government to step up and try and provide support. We are really worried about university sector job losses which are facing universities. We are really worried that universities are going to face really, really significant job losses, and we believe some sort of exemption for universities, potentially time limited, could support universities to get up onto their feet. So my amendment seeks to put a three-year time limit on Dr Bach’s exemption for universities from the mental health levy, with a view to supporting universities at this time of crisis and greatest need until they are in a better position to be able to contribute to the mental health levy in an ongoing capacity. Mr HAYES: I just wanted to speak on the amendments, if I may. When Dr Bach raised this as a possibility I was very happy to support the idea that we should do something to help the universities that are in a bad way at the moment, and a lot of that has been brought to our attention because of the COVID pandemic. But I also agree with Dr Ratnam: it is through years and years of underfunding by the commonwealth government especially that the universities are in a bad way. I do not mind making this support temporary either, because I hope during that time the government will come to its senses and the people of Australia will realise how important it is for us to have a well-funded university sector that does not have to rely on mass foreign students to support it. I believe that we have become addicted to that means of funding our universities. International students have become an unofficial part of the government’s funding policies. Back in 1989 universities derived more than 80 per cent of their operating costs from the public purse; now it is estimated to be less than 40 per cent. I would like to see that reversed. In countries that have fantastic educational outcomes, like Norway and Sweden, the government funds their universities—80 per cent in Sweden and fully funded in Norway—and students pay no fees there. I think this heavy reliance on fees and especially on international students has to come to an end, so I am happy to support the amendments. Mr BARTON: I rise to speak on Dr Bach’s amendment. There is no question the impact of COVID-19 on universities has been devastating, as it has been for all small, medium and large businesses. Both Monash University and Melbourne University, two of Victoria’s biggest educational institutions, were able to deliver a surplus in 2020. This new levy will mean that Monash and Melbourne universities will contribute to mental health support for all Victorians. This is being introduced after Monash delivered a total surplus of $323 million and Melbourne $148 million in 2020. This is an area I hope the government will continue to support and put the people of Victoria first. Victorian universities employ around 75 000 people, and international education is Victoria’s biggest export earner, providing a $12 billion boost to our state economy. Yes, this industry has taken a hit, but we are well positioned to assist this sector in its recovery. The government has provided investment in local universities to protect jobs and support the state’s economic rebound from this crisis. We have seen a $315 million fund to support universities with capital works, research and research partnerships. This was nothing less than a lifeline for local universities to save jobs and position themselves for the recovery. We have also seen the government offer universities payroll tax deferrals valued at around $110 million in recognition of the shortfall in funds these universities have experienced. Without doubt these investments have saved jobs. They have also prepared universities for a bounce- back which will be inevitable once Victoria can welcome international students again. However, we know that university jobs were lost during the pandemic, with the universities still managing to deliver BILLS 2042 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 surpluses in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a question about priority. There was also a clear commitment from staff and students to do what they could do to support universities during their time. Many staff took pay decreases to support their jobs. Others have forgone salary increases, and students still today are undertaking lessons online. Overall there has been a total investment of more than $1 billion to support the university sector. This is far more than any other state or territory. There was a $45 million International Student Emergency Relief Fund to support Victorian international students experiencing hardship through this crisis. This investment exceeds any modest responsibilities under the mental health and wellbeing levy. However, I do believe there needs to be more assistance. In particular I think a road map of how we are going to get international students back into Australia is critical. International students do not just support our local economy but also contribute to the vibrancy and diversity of our city. More needs to be done to prepare for the return of international students. Unfortunately we have reached a stage where universities rely on international students for much of their income. I believe it should be a priority to get these students back into the classrooms and receiving the high-quality education Victorian institutions have delivered for years. There is of course an irony in this amendment. We know that young people more than ever need mental health resources available to them that are low cost, accessible and tailored. This is what the mental health levy is designed to achieve. Universities will benefit significantly from having these mental health resources available. When the mental health of students is a priority, the education outcomes will improve. Students will be more supported. The Headspace 2020 national youth mental health survey showed a drop in rates of coping with life among 22- to 25-year-olds. This is a drop in their ability to manage daily activities such as university, home and work. Having Victoria’s biggest business invest in the mental health of our population is critical, and the universities will benefit from this investment. This bill is about providing critical mental health support. The government has invested massively in the university sector. As a result these universities recorded surpluses in 2020. I know that the road to recovery for the university sector is not going to be clear, straightforward or immediate. However, this does not make these businesses exempt from the mental health levy. I will not be supporting this suggested amendment. Mr Atkinson: On a point of order, Deputy President, I rise to actually question procedure in respect of these amendments. At this stage we have Dr Bach’s suggested amendment on the table and an amendment proposed by Dr Ratnam which is a more modest proposal than Dr Bach’s. It is my view that in fact in voting on amendments the house should have the opportunity to test the most extreme of the amendments first—in other words, the amendment that has the greatest impact—because then if that fails, there is an opportunity for those people who might have supported that to then consider whether or not they will support the more modest proposal. Too often in the past in this house—and I know, Deputy President, that it is not you that is making this decision and that in fact it is advice that I previously have also received from the clerks and in fact have gone a separate way— Mr Gepp: On a point of order, Deputy President, I am not quite sure what this contribution is about. It is either on the amendments or it is a procedural point of order. If it is a point of order— Mr Atkinson: It is on both. Mr Gepp: Well, I am not sure you can have it all ways. If it is a point of order, he is now going into debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Atkinson is entitled to make the point he is making. Mr Atkinson: Unbelievable. The situation is that the house always should have the opportunity to test the most significant of the amendments and then work its way backwards so that members, as I said, have got the opportunity, if the most significant one fails, to consider the lesser options. They might well have a better prospect of then being passed. If we do it in reverse order, which is what has been suggested at this point in time for this debate and these two amendments, then in fact if people BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2043 support Dr Ratnam’s position, we do not actually get to Dr Bach’s amendment at all because members really have to make a judgement on whether or not they are prepared to just go for the more modest proposal. Mr Davis: Further to the point of order, Deputy President, I understand the point Mr Atkinson is making, but the long tradition has been that if you amend an amendment, the amendment to the amendment is put first, and that is the normal way it is done. The alternative way for Dr Ratnam to bring an amendment to the chamber would have been a standalone amendment which had a different time period in it, and that is an entirely legitimate way forward. In this circumstance that is not the way it has been brought forward. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Atkinson is right on some of the historical amendments where we have had competing amendments, but this is actually an amendment to an amendment, so Dr Ratnam’s amendment does not stand on its own; she has actually only moved an amendment to Dr Bach’s amendment, so we will now vote on her amendment to Dr Bach’s amendment before we put Dr Bach’s amendment. It is the way it has been drafted; it cannot stand alone. It is very difficult to explain when we are amending an amendment. Dr BACH: Obviously I was incredibly keen to seek the support of the house for my amendment; however, based on the statements of members of the crossbench just now in the debate, that clearly is not the case. Clearly I have not managed to garner the support of the house, and so in this case, given that, although my very strong view and the very strong view of the coalition remains that our universities should be exempt, Dr Ratnam’s amendment does go some way for a short period of time to relieve the burden placed on Victoria’s universities, so in that instance, and given the fact that the process is as has been explained now, my colleagues and I will support Dr Ratnam’s amendment to my amendment. Committee divided on amendment to suggested new clause:

Ayes, 16 Atkinson, Mr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Hayes, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Ratnam, Dr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Rich-Phillips, Mr Davis, Mr Noes, 22 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Bourman, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Elasmar, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Erdogan, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Garrett, Ms Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Gepp, Mr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms Grimley, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms Kieu, Dr Amendment to suggested new clause negatived. Committee divided on suggested new clause:

Ayes, 16 Atkinson, Mr Finn, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Hayes, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Ratnam, Dr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Rich-Phillips, Mr Davis, Mr BILLS 2044 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Noes, 22 Barton, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Bourman, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Elasmar, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Erdogan, Mr Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Garrett, Ms Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Gepp, Mr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms Grimley, Mr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms Kieu, Dr Suggested new clause negatived. Clauses 69 and 70—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2). Reported to house without amendment. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (19:27): I move:

That the report be now adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. Third reading Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (19:27): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass. House divided on question:

Ayes, 24 Barton, Mr Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Bourman, Mr Leane, Mr Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Gepp, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Ratnam, Dr Vaghela, Ms Hayes, Mr Shing, Ms Watt, Ms Noes, 14 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Quilty, Mr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Question agreed to. Read third time. The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment. Dr Ratnam: I have a point of order, President, regarding something that happened in the order of business earlier in the day. Is this an okay time to do it, before the adjournment? BILLS Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2045

Ms Symes: Yes. Dr Ratnam: It is regarding something disturbing that occurred with the procedure of this house regarding the Gambling Regulation Amendment (Wagering and Betting Tax) Bill 2021. The bill passed after a second-reading speech from the opposition, noting that there were a number of speakers still remaining on the speaking list. I refer to the guidance that you have provided to the house, President, regarding members not being in the chamber as much as possible. A number of us, including me, who were on the list to speak were outside the chamber because we were trying to abide by those orders, not realising that the government speaker that we presumed would go next was not going to be able to speak. Therefore the debate was truncated, I was not able to circulate amendments and the committee stage that many members wanted to contribute to was not able to occur. So I wanted to raise the concerning point of order regarding the order of business and also seek your guidance as to how we can abide by your guidance to this chamber to stay out of the chamber as much as possible when it feels like the cooperation and good faith that is required to abide by that order has been undermined and it feels like it was actually exploited to be able to ram through the bill today rather than hear from a number of members in the chamber who wanted to contribute and raise amendments to the bill. Ms Symes: Further to the point of order, President, I welcome the contribution from Dr Ratnam, but not the allegation that there was any attempt to ram through a bill. The Chair called for speakers; there were none here. We actually stalled, no-one came and the matter was a matter for the Chair, but I just take issue with any accusation that there was any attempt to ram through a bill. I am pretty confident in the numbers in relation to that bill. We did not need to ram it through, Dr Ratnam, and any assertion to the opposite is completely and utterly false. As a mop-up situation, I would certainly acknowledge that it put out members that wanted to contribute to the bill, and as per the temporary orders they are able to make written contributions that can be incorporated into Hansard. Further I understand that government staffers have invited any questions that people wanted to ask in committee to be forwarded to the government and we will respond appropriately. Ms Patten: On the point of order, President, just to concur with Dr Ratnam, I was just coming up to the chamber to speak, understanding that the speaker list had a member of the opposition to start the debate followed by a member of the government, as per the general protocol. As I was walking up, I think in waiting for other speakers to appear—knowing, because we had the business meeting last night, that there were amendments and knowing that there was a speaker list that was actually sitting on the President’s table—some leeway could have been provided, or failing that I think, just following from Dr Ratnam, we need some advice. This came straight out of a cleaning break, so we need some advice as to whether we should all come back to the chamber at the same time, which kind of goes against the advice that we had already received. Ms Lovell: Further on the point of order, President, as I was in the chair I think I should make some clarification. This did not come after the cleaning break; it came after the lunch break when the bells rang to bring everybody back. We had one speaker from the opposition. There was not a single member of the crossbench in the house at the time. The next government speakers were not here. When the opposition speaker finished we did pause for a short while because we went, ‘There’s nobody here to speak, what are we going to do?’. Then as we moved on we said, ‘Well, there’s no speakers here’. The bill was then put. But I also make the point, President, that the speaking list actually has no standing. Yes, there are speaking lists, but they are only a guide for the person in the chair. They have no standing, and I think that there has been a lesson learned here by everyone today that on the crossbench, if they are intending ADJOURNMENT 2046 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021 to move amendments or wanting to particularly participate in a debate, somebody needs to actually be in the chamber. Dr Cumming: On the point of order, President, we do have these business meetings, which we did yesterday. Ms Lovell was in attendance with the Attorney and the President, and it was very clear that Dr Ratnam was going to move amendments to that bill. Respectfully, President, we do have an order which is: the opposition, the government and then the crossbench. It was in the hands of the government, and if the government was not having any speakers, then I believe that they should have rung the bells, called us in— Members interjecting. Dr Cumming: It is seriously courtesy, seeing that our orders are to keep out of the chamber. Ms Pulford: On the point of order, President, it is incumbent upon members who wish to speak to be here when the Chair makes the call about who is next to speak. The standing orders are really clear on that. And the health advice and the restrictions we are operating under at the moment are about people not milling about for hours unnecessarily and coming in in great numbers for quorum calls. Being next or second-next on the speaking list does not in any way offend the density rules that we are all seeking to abide by, and there is no provision whatsoever in the standing orders to ring the bells, absent a quorum call, because somebody has missed the call. The PRESIDENT: While I understand Dr Ratnam’s point of order and the explanations from various members and the Deputy President as well, as she was in the chair, and I understand that I said this morning that we should minimise members in the chamber—that is correct—at the same time I said members should be in the chamber if they are speaking on any bill or whatever the matter is. Now, according to standing orders there is nothing I can do about what happened before. And again, the Deputy President was correct: it was not after the cleaning break, it was just after the lunch break. Members should be aware that if they are speaking on a bill it is their duty to be in chamber. There is nothing in the standing orders, so further to this I do not want to hear any more about it. That is the end of it. Adjournment Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (19:42): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. IMPACT Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (19:43): I raise a matter for the attention of the Attorney- General. Last week, thanks to my colleague David Southwick, the member for Caulfield in the other place, I had the pleasure of meeting with Ms Kathy Kaplan, OAM, the founder and president of Impact, together with Margot Hillel, OAM, from Impact as well. Impact is an organisation that started in 2006 putting together care packs for victims of family violence. Their work has grown enormously since that time, and they now provide around 4000 care packs during the course of the year to women and children who are fleeing violence at home. They run on the smell of an oily rag and are run by volunteers. They receive many goods that are donated, and then volunteers package those goods. Impact have started a program providing childcare services one day a week at the Moorabbin Magistrates Court because they have identified a need where victims of family violence, predominantly women, are required to attend court in relation to a family violence intervention order or some other similar presentation and often have to bring their children with them. Now, this can be distressing for the children; it can create logistical issues in the court, particularly where the court does not have the infrastructure that supports separation of parties; and of course it can make the running of the court more challenging. So from an operational perspective I think many magistrates and the ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2047 court would welcome that. From a human perspective, giving parents the opportunity to focus on the legal proceedings on foot while having their children in a safe and caring environment would be a benefit as well. So the action I seek from the Attorney-General is that she meets with Impact as well to learn more about what they do with a view to establishing a pilot—in the first instance, I would suggest, at Moorabbin, where there is a significant family violence list and where Impact have already been doing some work—with a view to possibly rolling that out further in other locations. This is a really important initiative. I congratulate again Kathy and Margot and the team for the work they do and look forward to a positive response from the Attorney-General. SUBURBAN PARKS PROGRAM Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (19:57): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, the Honourable Lily D’Ambrosio. The Andrews Labor government has announced the creation of new parks in Clyde, Werribee and Deanside, along with the improvement of two parks in Werribee and Melton South. The parks are part of the $154 million suburban parks program. The proposed program aims to provide 6500 hectares of new and upgraded accessible green space for the communities in Melbourne’s growing outer suburbs. The proposed parks will improve health and wellbeing for people in the western and the south-eastern suburbs. This initiative will connect the community and be a valuable place for socialising, fun and exercise. Moreover, it will lead to the protection of native plants, animals, creeks and important conservation areas. This initiative will offer a variety of recreational activities such as walking and cycling tracks, tourism and educational opportunities. This will also lead to the creation of new jobs and increase climate change resilience. The most fascinating part of this initiative is that local people can now have their say on what the parks will look like. The community can come forward and share their ideas and feedback from 14 May to 27 June 2021. These ideas will help set priorities and plans for the upcoming developments. The action I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update on how this initiative is being promoted to the residents of the Western Metropolitan Region. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (19:59): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and the action I seek is to bring immediate reform to the authority-to-control-wildlife licensing regime, known as the ATCW. My office recently received the 2020 ATCW data. It was astonishing to see that the government that is bringing significant reform to animal welfare laws and holding an inquiry into biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline is also licensing the destruction of vulnerable species. The common long-necked turtle, part of the world’s most endangered vertebrate taxa, is now open for killing. These turtles are important to the health of the Murray-Darling Basin, yet 57 of them were allowed to be killed. Grey-headed flying foxes are native pollinators. Our environmental crisis is being exacerbated by the lack of pollinators. Flying foxes are listed as vulnerable at state, national and international level, yet our government issued authorities to kill well over 11 000 of them here in Victoria. The common wombat is not as common as it once was. In fact it is now extinct in parts of my electorate. Wombats are ecosystem engineers, and the loss of their unique digging behaviours is linked to the decline of Australian ecosystems. Wombat habitat has been destroyed mostly for agriculture, yet ATCWs were issued to kill almost 1500 of them. The wedge-tailed eagle, who is Bunjil, the creative spirit for many First Nations cultures—13 authorities to kill. The red wattlebird, 339. The welcome swallow is apparently not welcome here: 546 permits to kill. What on earth are we doing? ADJOURNMENT 2048 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

It took one of my staff less than 3 minutes to find, download and complete an ATCW. This tick-and- flick approach to killing wildlife during a global environmental crisis with Australia complicit in our journey towards a sixth mass extinction is beyond belief. All she had to do was tick a box to say she had explored non-lethal methods of control. No actual proof was required. Box ticked; no questions asked. Do the lives of these animals truly matter to a government that professes to be progressive? My views on the lives of all non-human animals are no secret to this house, nor to the world at large. But I am a realist, and I know that to completely eliminate ATCWs is not something the government will entertain, so I ask the minister for an alternative and to ensure a critical and detailed review of the authority-to-control-wildlife program. The lives of our wildlife are dismissed far too easily under the current system, and it must be significantly reformed. COVID-19 VACCINATION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (20:02): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health, and it relates to the vaccine booking system under the state system. The commonwealth have an online booking system that is very easy to use, and it has been in place for months and months. The Victorian government, the Andrews government, have not got their act together. They have been completely unprepared and taken off guard with this latest outbreak and the ongoing— Mr Finn: That’s unusual for the government! Ms CROZIER: Well, Mr Finn, as today we have found with the breaches in hotel quarantine— absolutely hopeless. We are in lockdown, a fourth lockdown, the only state to be so, and as a result of course Victorians have wanted to get vaccinated, have heeded to the call to get vaccinated, but the government has not put in place the proper systems to support what needs to be done. I have been contacted by several constituents, and others from around the state actually, who have got their Pfizer vaccines but need to get their second doses, and there is no way they can get them through the online booking system. The hubs tell them that they need to ring the hotline. The hotline rings out or says— Ms Taylor interjected. Ms CROZIER: Ms Taylor, I am telling you that this is absolutely a system that is in chaos. It is a mess. It is not working. And the action I seek is an explanation from the minister for why this ongoing chaos, confusion and mess is occurring where people cannot get appointments to have their second vaccinations. The government is claiming that everybody needs to. We have heard the minister say the only way we are going to get out of lockdown is if 70 per cent of us are vaccinated. Well, I say to the government: get your act together, get the systems in place. I call on the minister to explain these failings in this very critical part of the vaccination program. COVID-19 Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (20:04): My adjournment matter is for the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services. During the COVID lockdown the gyms, as I understand, in police stations have been shut down whilst the gyms in fire stations have not been shut down. The problem I see is that the police spend a lot of time in cars driving around and it is actually very difficult for a lot of police to get the exercise they need. I think this is a very poor decision that someone has made—I am not sure entirely sure who. What I would ask is that the police minister, or acting minister, investigate this. I know we will be out of lockdown soon, but a gym should be open, particularly for the police, at every given opportunity. GREENVALE POLICE RESOURCES Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (20:05): My adjournment is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The people of Greenvale are concerned about the illegal dumping of rubbish, antisocial behaviour and hoon driving. Recently I invited Greenvale locals to complete my survey on ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2049 how to make Greenvale an even better place to live, and I thank those people who responded to the survey. Greenvale is such a diverse and wonderful multicultural community. The Greenvale residents care for their community and they want a cleaner, safer suburb to raise their families. The action I seek from the minister is for the government to commit to extra police patrols to better deter the illegal dumping of rubbish on Somerton Road near the Woodlands Historic Park; in Bonds Lane, in Providence Road and in the new estates opposite Aitken College to deter antisocial behaviour in the parkland near Greenvale Recreation Centre; and to deter hoon behaviour on Barrymore Road and Greenvale Drive. SENTENCING REFORM Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (20:06): My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Attorney-General, and it relates to the involvement of courts in considering incarceration programs as part of sentencing. However, as it relates to prisons, there may be some crossover with the Minister for Corrections’ office as well. One of the key policy areas of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party is reform of sentencing laws. That does not necessarily mean giving longer sentences to offenders in a punitive sense, but it does mean looking at ways to improve sentencing for our offenders to achieve better outcomes. In my humble opinion, Victoria has some work to do. A fundamental flaw in the way we hand down sentences is that there is no consideration by a judge or magistrate around which prison the offender might go to. If imprisonment is determined as the best sanction, the decision of where that person will be sent to rests solely with Corrections Victoria. Obviously Corrections hold the information about which prisons are at capacity and which prisons are the right security level in respect of that offender, but these considerations come after the sentence is decided. I paraphrase the words of a senior Corrections staff member, who said they do not consider themselves an advocate for harsher sentencing but that it is a problem that some people do not have access to programs when they get there. They had just finished giving an example of where someone who had been found guilty of an aggravated offence could be sentenced to, say, six or seven months in prison. They might then end up at a prison which has a nine-month intensive anger management course. Given there is no legislative power to keep that person imprisoned for two months longer, they reluctantly would be sent to a prison with no access to any relevant programs to curb their behaviour. It is just unbelievable that a magistrate could sentence someone to an arbitrary sentence of imprisonment without factoring in any sort of rehabilitation service or access at all. In my mind, and in the mind of the community, despite prison being a type of punishment, there is also an expectation that a person will come out having completed rehab in some form. In terms of a solution, I would be interested in understanding how Corrections Victoria could play a part in providing regular advice to the courts about what programs are available and where. Defence lawyers and the public prosecutors could also submit their case in relation to where the offender is best suited to serve their incarceration. As we know, our recidivism rate is high, so if we can address the causal factors of offending whilst someone is in prison, there is less chance of them offending once they are released, and that importantly means less victims. The action that I seek from the minister is to provide advice around what the government plans to do to ensure that when an offender is sentenced to imprisonment their needs and access to relevant programs are considered as part of the sentence being handed down. COVID-19 Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (20:09): My adjournment matter is for the Acting Premier, and it concerns unfair provisions in the latest COVID-19 restrictions imposed on regional Victoria. The action that I seek from the Acting Premier is for him to revise the current COVID-19 restrictions imposed on regional Victoria and immediately allow the opening of gymnasiums and dance studios to allow these businesses to operate. ADJOURNMENT 2050 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Victoria’s fourth COVID-19 lockdown has been a heartbreaking experience for all of us. Despite its self-proclaimed gold standard management of the pandemic, the Andrews Labor government continues to fail Victorians with its apparent obsession with imposing blanket lockdowns across the entire state—despite regional Victoria not having a single case of COVID-19. It seems the government is either unable to comprehend the enormous physical, emotional and financial devastation it creates with every day of lockdown or it simply does not care. Thankfully lockdown restrictions have eased in regional Victoria, which, as I said, has not had a single positive case of COVID-19 in this latest outbreak, but there are still restrictions in place in regional areas which continue to impact the lives of all country people. I have been contacted by many owners of gyms and dance studios throughout my electorate who are once again facing financial devastation because they have been excluded from the easing of restrictions and are forced to remain closed. The impact on businesses on the New South Wales border is even more devastating, because while a gym in Cobram is unable to operate, gyms in Barooga can, and Victorian border residents are free to cross the border under the border bubble arrangements, where in New South Wales they enjoy far more freedoms. This is totally unfair on operators of Victorian gyms, as their customers who are prevented from accessing a gym in Victoria are participating in these activities in New South Wales. Border towns are one community. Closing a gym on the Victorian side while a gym on the New South Wales side is operating is pointless. The same people who are accessing the New South Wales facilities are still living in and moving around the community on the Victorian side. The Acting Premier must realise the negative impact lockdowns and restrictions have on the mental health of Victorians. Many people rely on exercise to keep fit, both physically and emotionally. Both gymnasiums and dance studios have previously shown they can operate safely by following strict cleaning and hygiene practices. These facilities spent most of last year unable to trade, and it is unfair on those in regional Victoria that they are once again locked down despite no positive cases outside of metropolitan Melbourne. FINES REVENUE Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (20:11): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action that I seek is for the minister to confirm the role of the Victorian police is to enforce the safety and protection of all Victorians and not to raise revenue. Victoria is heavily reliant on fines. Over the five years to 2019–20 Victoria raised on average $117 per person. That is nearly double the average of Australia, which is only $60. Last year, the police had a field day handing out COVID fines. They handed out over 37 505 fines for breaches of the chief health officer’s directions. With most fines at at least $1652, that is a staggering $61.9 million at least to be added to the state coffers. No wonder a leading economist has described the Victorian police force as a de facto tax office for the state. If the government are relying on this revenue, they really need to get Fines Victoria’s IT system working properly. The slow IT system has had a big impact on local councils. Some councils are millions of dollars out of pocket, and then they are threatening the community with court action. More than 120 000 court-issued fines have not been sent out and the debts have not been recovered because the system is not working properly. It has been estimated that these fines could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Victorians have been suffering for the past year, both mentally and financially, and yet here we have a government that is heavy-handed when it comes to fines and using the police force to bring in the dollars. And now we have an increase in this budget, that I can see, of 10 per cent on fines and penalties. I have to wonder: is this one way the government is trying to recoup some of the losses that they have lost from revenue caused by Fines Victoria? EASTERN VICTORIA REGION ROADS Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (20:14): My adjournment matter this evening is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in the other place, and it relates to the parlous state of our regional roads and ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2051 specifically the roads in my electorate of Eastern Victoria Region. One of the worst phone calls that any parent can receive is for her son to ring up and say, ‘Mum, I’ve had an accident’. That was exactly the phone call that Catherine Waldron, a mother from South Gippsland in my electorate, received from her son, whose motorcycle had hit a shocking patch of road, a disintegrated patch of road, on the Bass Highway near Leongatha. Distraught, she related to me how her son was airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital as a precautionary measure to check out his spinal cord. Thankfully he is now convalescing at home and he should make a full recovery. But this accident occurred in daylight, it occurred under good weather conditions, with only shade crossing the road and indeed hiding that patch of danger. Later Cathy took me to that spot and showed me, using a spirit level, how uneven it is and the sink that is in that road and the crumbling nature of it. Now, it had been patched previously, but it absolutely is failing our community and indeed Cathy’s son. It needs proper profiling and a quality base to fix it. There are thousands of examples of potholes and scrubby roads that are not working properly to support the safety of our people on regional roads. The Strzelecki Highway is another example of where potholes and uneven surfaces can create these public safety issues. There are thousands of kilometres of them. We see in the latest state budget that only 8 per cent of capital funding relates to and is given to one-quarter of the population, in regional Victoria. We see that only a mere fraction of the previous year’s budget was available for road maintenance. Indeed 25 per cent has been cut from the road maintenance budget for safety on our state roads. The action I seek therefore from the minister is to provide specific and targeted funding to properly fix our deteriorated road surfaces on the Bass Highway and Strzelecki Highway, but across the board, and provide a framework so that this will be completed, and speak to Cathy or provide Cathy with some detail around that time frame so that she will never have to receive a phone call again to say, ‘Mum, I’ve had an accident on a road’. CAULFIELD TRAIN STATION Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (20:17): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and the action I seek is that the minister upgrade Caulfield station. As the second-busiest station outside the CBD, located next to the vibrant Monash University campus and Caulfield Racecourse, Caulfield’s upgrade is long overdue. Caulfield station is currently suffering from poor planning, which needs urgent attention before the Melbourne Metro Tunnel is completed, to avoid future complications. The poor layout forces commuters to enter and exit paid areas when switching platforms via a single underpass, which creates bottlenecks and delays during peak travel times. This will only worsen once the Metro Tunnel opens, unless a new concourse at the end of the station or a similar solution is implemented beforehand. Upgrade works are especially urgent, as the station is largely inaccessible and does not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. It needs new lifts, stairs, escalators, ticketing and bathrooms, as well as improved retail facilities that will support passengers from all backgrounds on their journeys. While in the 2021–22 budget $2 million is allocated for the planning phase of the Caulfield station interchange project, we need to see a long-term commitment to complete the works. The Victorian Transport Action Group estimates that this concourse could be delivered prior to the opening of the Metro Tunnel for between $50 million and $70 million, or 0.5 per cent of the total cost of the tunnel. I ask that the minister consider not only the needs of the Caulfield community and its surrounds but those of commuters who will travel through the station once it becomes a Melbourne Metro hub. The Greens have been talking about this issue for years now, along with the transport and community advocacy groups, and we all want to see action taken before it is too late. ADJOURNMENT 2052 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

WILD HORSE CONTROL Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (20:19): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and concerns the shooting of brumbies in Victorian national parks. I am deeply concerned that the same instinct which has caused Parks Victoria to undertake previous cynical and predetermined consultation processes on this topic is now persisting in the secrecy surrounding its implementation. Last month the Parks Victoria Alpine National Park website stated, I quote, ‘Aerial shooting operation underway’ and that ‘Parts of this park will be closed from Monday 24 to Friday 28 May 2021’. The link loaded a page entitled ‘Deer and feral animal control in response to bushfire’. Not once was there any reference to reducing or eradicating the brumby population. It is unsurprising, given the approach taken by Parks Victoria to date, but members of the public who oppose the program to shoot brumbies are concerned about such opaque wording. I am told that a contract has been let to collect the carcasses of those animals shot dead by Parks Victoria in the national parks. The Australian Brumby Alliance (ABA) wrote to Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning ministers and department secretary John Bradley in April to raise this question. The response received is categorical in its denial but only of one specific question. The rest of the letter uses the same linguistic contrivances to hide the reality of the policy, which is to shoot horses and in some areas to eradicate the brumby population entirely. Mr Bradley’s reply states:

As outlined in the current Feral Horse Strategic Action Plan … and the revised … Feral Horse Action Plan 2021, Parks Victoria proposes to • continue to trap feral horses for rehoming to the extent that suitable rehoming applicants can be found; • implement the most humane, safe and effective horse control techniques; and • conduct all horse management operations according to strict standards for animal welfare and public safety. Without prior knowledge no reader would understand what that actually means—that ‘humane horse control’ and ‘horse management operations’ simply means shooting them. Yet despite denying the specific allegation from the ABA, he wrote:

Planning and implementation of the feral horse management program is underway. What does this mean? The action I seek from the minister is confirmation that no carcass removal contract has been awarded and that there is no ongoing operation to control the population of wild horses in Victorian national parks. It would be further helpful to avoid speculation and to promote trust through transparency for the minister to provide the latest timetable for any measures related specifically to horses planned in the future. COVID-19 Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (20:22): My adjournment matter is for the attention of the Minister for Health. My office was contacted on the weekend by a young father who has become stranded in Queensland on his way back to Melbourne with his pregnant wife. Moe and Sarah Haidar were returning from Qatar, where they had been living, to their home in Epping so that they could be close to friends and family to give birth to their first child. The medical advice they received was that Sarah would just need to get a 30-week scan for her pregnancy and they could quarantine in Queensland before making their way home. Unfortunately this scan revealed a complication, and an emergency procedure was required to deliver the baby early. In COVID times nothing is easy or normal, and Moe was not able to be present for the birth despite being vaccinated and testing negative for COVID. Sarah and Moe are yet to see newborn Ilyas, but I am informed that he is breathing on his own and he is doing well, thank goodness. Staff in my office have spoken with Moe, and while critical of some of the communication breakdowns and bureaucratic procedures in the Queensland health system, he is grateful for the support of staff and of social workers that have found them ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2053 accommodation for their unplanned stay. Right now this young family just want to get home to Victoria, where they have a home, friends and families to support them and Moe has a job that he can return to. My request for the Minister for Health is to work with Queensland Health and take whatever measures are possible to facilitate the return of Moe, Sarah and young Ilyas Haidar as soon as possible. COVID-19 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (20:23): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health. Two weeks ago the government plunged the whole state into another lockdown. If the Mother’s Day lockdown was a circuit-breaker, lockdown 4.0 would have to be the spirit crusher. For many small businesses this lockdown will be the final straw. The wreckage, economic and emotional, will be considerable. Last week Melbourne was refused parole while regional Victoria was released under considerable conditions—or most of regional Victoria was. Some businesses remain unable to operate. Among these are gyms and dance studios. One of the ongoing complaints about this government’s lockdowns is that the rules are being made by bureaucrats who seem to have made their careers out of never taking risks instead of by those who know the industries in question, many of them professionals who manage risks for a living. Safety is a primary concern in a gym, so the machines where people lift weights, pedal frantically or run at a steady canter are separated by a good amount of space. Gym owners are sensible, responsible business operators who are more than capable of implementing COVID-safe plans to minimise infection risk. Presumably many of the health bureaucrats have not visited gyms recently, because if they had they would know that the gyms are safe. Equipment is sterilised after use, air can be ventilated and users can be tracked. Gyms operate safely. Gyms are not only about pumping weights, exercise is crucial for maintaining physical and mental health. This ongoing lockdown is doing physical and mental damage. I have been contacted by a number of regional gym owners who have reached the end of their tether and who despair for the future. This nonsense needs to end. Minister, in regional Victoria, where we have no COVID and in most cases have never had COVID, why do gyms remain closed? Why are we still being forced to suffer under unreasonable rules— unreasonable for Melbourne, ludicrous for Mildura. The action I seek is for the minister to investigate why regional gyms and dance studios remain closed while most other businesses outside of Melbourne have been reopened with COVID-safe plans, and if the reasons do not stack up—as they will not—to reopen them as a matter of urgency. MELBOURNE AIRPORT RAIL LINK Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (20:25): My matter for the adjournment tonight is for the attention of the Minister for Transport Infrastructure, and it is in regard to the Sunshine and Albion stations that are proposed and the impact on the local community that will flow from the Melbourne Airport rail link. Mr Finn interjected. Mr DAVIS: Now, we strongly supported a Melbourne Airport rail link, but we had a different model, Mr Finn. We had tunnels that came from Spencer Street through to Sunshine and would not have caused the difficulties that are being caused now. The government—as always with this government and with Jacinta Allan in particular—is always out of touch and determined to impose its view on the local community. I know there was a meeting last night. Mr Finn: They’re not happy. Mr DAVIS: They are very unhappy, Mr Finn, and I understand you know well the problems that people face, because the government is determined to impose its solution, which is a large elevated structure, which will have a significant impact on the local community—a huge, huge structure. ADJOURNMENT 2054 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

Nobody requested this, and there are other alternatives. The state government is seeking to impose this, as I say, without discussing this properly with the local community or indeed with the local councils, and they should. I think Jacinta Allan should visit the local community and actually hear firsthand, as it were, from the horse’s mouth exactly what people think. Mr Finn: I will escort her. Mr DAVIS: Mr Finn would be very happy to escort her. Dr Cumming interjected. Mr DAVIS: Well, indeed Dr Cumming would probably turn up as well. You would enjoy it. But everywhere that Minister Allan has imposed her constructions they have occurred in a way that the community has been rolled over, the consultation has been fake and the outcomes in so many places suboptimal. Major projects that actually should be driving the future of towns and cities are actually delivering suboptimal outcomes, and this is such a case. I say that the minister needs to look afresh at this. I say that she needs to actually visit the local community and she needs to hear what the local community want, and they do not want the project as she has conceived it. They do not want this foisted on the local community. They actually want a different outcome, and they want an outcome that does not destroy local communities, that does not divide communities and that does not build excessively ugly structures when there are alternatives. So the action I seek, to be very clear, is that the Minister for Transport Infrastructure meet with the local community, escorted perhaps by local MPs if they wish to do that. But it has reached crisis point. The community is meeting, and they are very, very unhappy. RESPONSES Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (20:29): This evening we had 15 adjournment matters that were raised by members, and they will be forwarded to the relevant ministers. There are 26 responses to adjournment matters. The PRESIDENT: On that basis the house stands adjourned. House adjourned 8.29 pm. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2055

Written adjournment responses Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers. Tuesday, 8 June 2021

BELL STREET, COBURG AND PRESTON, ROAD SAFETY In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (19 February 2021) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

Balancing the movement of vehicles, buses, pedestrians, trams and trains on roads across Bell Street is complex. Traffic lights across the network are adaptive to help minimise delays. For Bell Street, the traffic light timing is designed to prioritise the busiest movements while also balancing the need to allow safe and reasonable access. The removal of dangerous level crossings on Bell Street is underway with the removal of several in Coburg (including on Bell Street) in December 2020 and works commencing to remove others in Preston (including on Bell Street) by 2022. This includes complimentary work to provide improved and safer connections for pedestrians, cyclists, and buses. While some delay to motorists is unavoidable, the Department of Transport (DoT) asks for commuters to be patient and seek alternatives if possible while this important work progresses. Furthermore, travel demands and patterns have changed since the removal of the level crossing in Coburg and since COVID travel restrictions were eased earlier this year. DoT will continue to monitor the operation and safety of Bell Street and surrounds to identify and implement changes where necessary, including to the traffic light sequencing. ALPINE BETTER PLACES In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (29 April 2021) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

I thank the Member for Northern Victoria for drawing attention to Alpine Shire Council’s Alpine Better Places infrastructure program. On my recent visit to Alpine Shire, I was able to see firsthand the great work delivered by Alpine Shire Council in Bright through the Alpine Better Places—–Economic Rejuvenation for Bright project, including cycle friendly infrastructure, clear township gateways to welcome and direct visitors, and a social and cultural heart for the town in Mafeking Square. These projects all support visitation to Bright’s town centre providing additional reasons for visitors to extend their stay and further support the local economy. The Victorian Government is proud to have supported the Alpine Better Places program, having provided $1,150,000 to Alpine Shire Council to develop and deliver the program’s priorities including: • $150,000, through the Putting Locals First Program, toward the development of the Alpine Better Places Strategy in 2014; • $500,000, through the Regional Infrastructure Fund, toward the Economic Rejuvenation of Bright in 2015; and • $500,000, also through the Regional Infrastructure Fund, toward the Economic Rejuvenation of Porepunkah in 2016. The Victorian Government has also supported the Alpine Shire Council, through funding of $4.6 million from the Bushfire Recovery Regional Economic Stimulus and Resilience Fund for the Gateway to Alpine Adventure—–Dinner Plain Activation Phase 2 and Great Alpine High Country Connectivity—–Dargo High Plains Road Upgrade projects. Furthermore, the Victorian Government has provided $2.1 million of COVID-19 Crisis Committee of Cabinet Infrastructure Stimulus funding to bring forward the upgrade of the Tawonga Caravan Park in 2020—a valuable asset for the Alpine Shire and the local economy. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2056 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

COMMUNITY SPORT In reply to Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (29 April 2021) Ms SPENCE (Yuroke—Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport, Minister for Youth):

I thank the Member for Southern Metropolitan Region for his question and for his continued support of community sport across the state. The Andrews Labor Government’s $40 million Community Sport Sector COVID-19 Short-term Survival Package is designed to support the viability of community sport and active recreation organisations impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Funding through the program can be used to support a club, league or association’s ongoing viability, including for items such as ongoing fixed costs and to purchase equipment, or for signage and cleaning supplies to ensure organisations can return to play in a COVIDSafe manner. In the third round of the program, for-profit clubs, leagues and associations were also eligible to apply if they are affiliated with a recognised State Sporting Association. Organisations that received funding from the first two rounds of the program and still meet the eligibility criteria will be provided with an automatic top-up payment of $750 for clubs and $1,500 for leagues and associations. Within the Alpine Shire Council, which includes Bright and surrounding areas, 52 grassroots sport and recreation organisations are receiving a top-up payment, and this is welcome news for community sport in the region. ONLINE SAFETY AND CONSENT EDUCATION In reply to Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (29 April 2021) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The Andrews Labor Government is committed to promoting equality and respect as everyone in our community deserves to be respected, valued and treated equally. That is why I announced on 21 March 2021 that it will become mandatory for all government schools to teach consent in an age-appropriate way from Term 2. All government and Catholic schools teach respectful relationships education and sexuality education through the Victorian Curriculum. The Department of Education and Training supports schools to deliver the curriculum by providing evidence-based, age-appropriate teaching and learning resources. These resources include topics of consent and online safety. The Department will continue to consult with experts and key stakeholders to further strengthen consent education resources and training. Respectful Relationships supports schools to promote and model respect, positive attitudes and behaviours and teaches students how to build healthy relationships, resilience and confidence. The initiative is proven to make a real difference and is a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Family Violence. The whole school approach to Respectful Relationships supports schools to embed a culture of respect and gender equality across the entire school community. Over 1,850 government, Catholic and independent schools are signed on to the Respectful Relationships whole school approach, including all government schools. I want to see every single school across the country implement this program. The Government takes child safety, including online grooming, very seriously. As you may be aware, in 2016, the Government introduced the Child Safe Standards (the Standards). These comprise seven compulsory minimum Standards for all Victorian organisations that provide services or facilities to children, including schools and early childhood services. The Standards focus on creating child safe cultures and require organisations to have effective policies and practices in place to prevent, respond to and report child abuse. As part of compliance with the Standards, schools are required to deliver appropriate education to students about child abuse awareness and prevention. This could include education about safety from online grooming. The Department has developed guidance on the PROTECT website that supports schools to deliver child abuse awareness and prevention education, including links to resources such as Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships and the Daniel Morcombe Child Safety Curriculum. The PROTECT website includes detailed guidance on identifying and responding to child abuse (including grooming) in schools and early childhood services. All Victorian government school teachers are also WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2057

required to complete the Protecting children: mandatory reporting and other obligations online module every year, which includes information on how to identify and respond to grooming. Since 2011, the Government has invested $14.5 million to enable Victorian schools to access Alannah and Madeline Foundation’s eSmart Schools cyber safety program. The program guides the introduction of policies, practices and whole-school change processes to support the creation of a cyber-safe environment and includes supporting students to improve their ability to respond appropriately to cyber risks such as online sexual predation. In February 2018 the Government announced a Victorian Anti-Bullying and Mental Health Initiative that included $2.5 million over four years to allow every Victorian government and non-government school not already registered to eSmart to have free access to the program if they choose to. Over 1,700 Victorian schools from all three sectors are currently using eSmart Schools. Together these programs and investments support the online safety of children and young people and their understanding of consent. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (29 April 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) Regional Planning Partnership team recently met with representatives from Alpine Shire Council to discuss housing issues and more specifically the lack of accommodation for key workers. The council provided DELWP with an overview of the issues and the impacts on housing affordability, employment and tourism. The council is undertaking a Key Working Housing Pilot and Strategic Planning Program to help address the issues and has sought assistance from DELWP in the delivery of its strategic planning projects. DELWP will continue to work closely with the council and provide support wherever possible through the Regional Planning Hubs program. POWER SAVING BONUS PROGRAM In reply to Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (4 May 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The $250 Power Saving Bonus Program was launched on 1 February 2021 and will run until 31 January 2022. The $250 bonus is available to any households with a Victorian electricity account and a Pensioner Concession, JobSeeker, Austudy, Abstudy or Youth Allowance recipient. Eligible households can apply by visiting the Victorian Energy Compare website (compare.energy.vic.gov.au) and submitting an application. Since the $250 Power Saving Bonus program was launched, there have been more than 200,000 applications submitted, with 160,000 households having already received their $250 payment. As part of the Power Saving Bonus Program the Victorian Government are partnering with approved community organisations through a community outreach program aimed specifically at vulnerable and hard- to-reach consumers. The program has already helped more than 6,000 Victorians submit an application over the phone or in-person and from late-May, four new community organisations will be joining the program, ensuring that the support to these consumers increases significantly for the remainder of the Power Saving Bonus program. As you are aware, the Power Saving Bonus program is administered through the government’s Victorian Energy Compare website. The Victorian Energy Compare website is the only free and independent price comparison website in Victoria and seven out of ten people can save money by using the website to compare offers, with typical annual household savings of $330 on energy bills in the first year alone. Since the Power Saving Bonus program launched on 1 February 2021, the website has been visited more than 1,000,000 times. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2058 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

ENERGY POLICY In reply to Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (4 May 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Victorian Government remains committed to delivering on its nation leading Energy Fairness Plan to help reduce energy prices, increase transparency in the market and ensure that retailers who do the wrong thing face the consequences. Our Energy Fairness Plan, combined with our commitment to bringing new renewable energy capacity online, is driving power prices lower. Retail electricity prices fell by 10 per cent in the 12 months to March this year. The fall in electricity prices is reflected in the Victorian Default Offer (VDO). The VDO is the centrepiece of the government’s Energy Fairness Plan, providing a simple, trusted and fair price for electricity to Victorian households and small businesses. The VDO tariffs in effect from 1 January 2021 are the lowest since the VDO was first introduced in 2019, being lower on average than the previous VDO tariffs by 10 per cent for residential customers and 14 per cent for small businesses. The $250 Power Saving Bonus is another government initiative aimed at reducing energy bill stress. Until 31 January 2022, any households with a Victorian electricity account and a Pensioner Concession, JobSeeker, Austudy, Abstudy or Youth Allowance recipient, are able to submit an application for the $250 payment. Eligible households can apply by visiting the Victorian Energy Compare website (compare.energy.vic.gov.au) and submitting an application. The Power Saving Bonus program is administered through the government’s Victorian Energy Compare website, which is the only free and independent price comparison website in Victoria. Seven out of ten people can save money by using the website to compare offers, with typical annual household savings of $330 on energy bills in the first year alone. There are a variety of concessions and benefits available to assist low-income Victorians with energy bills, including an Annual Electricity Concession, a Service to Property Charge Concession, a Winter Gas Concession, and a Life Support Concession. Further information on the government’s energy concessions can be found through the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing’s website at https://services.dffh.vic.gov.au/energy or the Victorian Concessions Information Line on 1800 658 521. PHILLIP ISLAND ROAD, SAN REMO In reply to Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (4 May 2021) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

I am pleased to advise that the signs have been delivered and were installed on Friday 7 May 2021. WINTON WETLANDS In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (4 May 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

Winton Wetlands Natural Features Reserve was established in August 2010 and is managed by the Winton Wetlands Committee of Management. The Committee’s priority is to grow the site’s natural, scientific, cultural, and environmental significance and deliver educational, research, tourism, recreation, and community development outcomes. In 2020, the Winton Wetlands was the first site outside of the United States to be declared a Wetland of Distinction by the Society of Wetland Scientists. During 2019–20, a year marked by bushfires and the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Winton Wetlands Committee: • received 47,726 visitors • planted 8,350 trees • provided guided excursions and tours to 1,372 visitors WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2059

• maintained 125 kilometres of road and pathway • supported 28 staff • recorded 3,952 volunteer hours, and • treated approximately 8,950 hectares for pest plants and animals. Given the visitor activity and on ground management currently undertaken at the reserve, it is not appropriate to open the Winton Wetlands to duck hunting. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS In reply to Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (4 May 2021) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

The Victorian Government is committed to transitioning to a climate resilient, net-zero emissions economy by 2050. Responding to climate change is critical for ensuring long-term economic prosperity for the agriculture sector and regional communities across Victoria. This is reinforced through the government’s new Strategy for Agriculture in Victoria. On 2 May 2021, the Victorian Government released a Climate Change Strategy and targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28–33 per cent by 2025, and 45–50 per cent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. Victoria’s agriculture sector has a key role to play in transitioning to a net-zero emissions economy and the Victorian Government has recognised this through investing in a range of initiatives such as: • $20 million over four years to support the agriculture sector to reduce its emissions through an agriculture sector pledge. • $15.3 million over ten years to deliver the Victorian Carbon Farming Program to support private landowners to sequester carbon through agroforestry and planting shelterbelts. We know that many farmers are ready to act, and the Victorian Government wants to work with the sector to support this action. The Agriculture Sector Pledge will set the foundations in this first five-year period and toward 2050 through three key components: 1. Working with industry on a shared vision for agriculture’s contribution to net-zero emissions in 2050 2. Investing $3.9 million to accelerate ground-breaking research and trials of methane-inhibiting feed additives on Victorian farms 3. Strengthening the sector’s capability to reduce emissions with a $15.4 million investment in information, tools and services. This includes delivering a pilot on-farm action plan program and partnering with up to 250 farmers to measure emissions and climate risk. Up to $5 million will be available as direct grants to support these farmers in implementing actions recommended through the pilot. The Pledge complements this Government’s $15.3 million investment in the Victorian Carbon Farming Program and an additional $30 million investment to increase energy efficiency and productivity through the Agriculture Energy Investment Plan. We are taking action to deliver for the Victorian agriculture sector, and I will continue to advocate for more action and leadership at a national level. POINT COOK POLICE STATION In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (4 May 2021) Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

The Victorian Government is supporting the growing communities in the west by investing in infrastructure and police to ensure they have the resources they need to keep people safe. The government’s $3.89 billion investment in police is giving Victoria Police the resources, powers and laws it needs to keep the Victorian community safe. As part of this investment, 100 of the government’s 3,135 new police have been allocated to the Westgate division, including 42 to specialist roles. The City of Wyndham, which includes Point Cook, is serviced by a 24-hour police station in Werribee and a non-24-hour station in Wyndham North and residents should be in no doubt that they are well protected. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2060 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

The Victorian Government purchased a parcel of land at 85 Point Cook, Homestead Road in 2018. The land is currently owned by Victoria Police and will be the location for a future Point Cook Police Station, as the Government has previously committed. 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. MARKHAM ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (4 May 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

The Victorian Budget 2020–21 delivered a historic $5.3 billion Big Housing Build to construct more than 12,000 new homes throughout metropolitan and regional Victoria, and support around 10,000 jobs per year over the next four years, to supercharge Victoria’s economic recovery through the pandemic and beyond. The Markham Housing Estate redevelopment is one of several ‘fast start’ sites as part of the Big Housing Build. The redevelopment of the Markham Estate in Ashburton will deliver much needed social housing in the eastern region, delivering secure, modern, and affordable homes. Boroondara City Council and the local community have been previously consulted about the project. The streamlined planning approval pathway for redevelopment of the Markham Estate as part of Amendment C321boro to the Boroondara Planning Scheme is an approach consistent with changes made to the Victoria Planning Provisions in December 2020 to streamline the planning process and support economic recovery through the creation of thousands of jobs, and the rapid delivery of social and affordable housing across the state. GREATER SHEPPARTON SECONDARY COLLEGE In reply to Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (5 May 2021) Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health):

The claim there has been a mass exodus of Greater Shepparton Secondary College (GSSC) students to schools in other outlying towns is false. It is frustrating that this sort of misinformation is being consistently spread among the community. It is unhelpful to the school community. School records show only four students have left GSSC in 2021 to attend secondary schools in nearby towns. GSSC has a total enrolment in 2021 of 2,308 students. Shepparton and Mooroopna secondary schools have experienced a fall in enrolments every year from 2010– 2019. Below-average public secondary student outcomes and declining enrolments at Shepparton and Mooroopna secondary schools are among the key factors behind the investment in the Shepparton Education Plan and the development of Greater Shepparton Secondary College. Some fluctuation in enrolments is to be expected during the initial years following a merger while a new school builds its reputation and identity. Students in Shepparton will be in their world-class secondary school at the beginning of 2022, with the Victorian Government investing $119 million to finish construction of Greater Shepparton Secondary College. We anticipate strong enrolments at Greater Shepparton Secondary College from 2021. This new school is offering many advantages for students—they are able to study a broader range of subjects and have more student support and wellbeing measures available. The school offers all VCE subjects, a VCAL program and a broad range of VET options. The Andrews Labor Government, through the Department of Education and Training (the Department) and the Department of Transport (DoT), provides travel assistance to eligible families through an extensive network of free bus services or a conveyance allowance for students throughout rural and regional Victoria. Families may elect to send their children to any school, however the School Bus Program (SBP) is provided for students to attend their nearest government or non-government school. For those families residing in the Greater Shepparton Area, the Greater Shepparton Secondary College will in most cases remain their nearest. In this case, families residing in Greater Shepparton area and electing to send their children to other schools will be ineligible for travel assistance. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2061

Families with children attending a school that is not their nearest should discuss travel opportunities with the school attending, as they may be able to access available seating capacity as a non-eligible fare payer, and should a family’s circumstances be challenging or complex, families can apply for Transport Special Case Consideration through the school they are attending. When the Greater Shepparton Secondary College opened across three campuses in 2020, the Department and DoT worked to ensure that safe and convenient student transport services were introduced for the 2020 school year. To further support families through the transitional period until the Greater Shepparton Secondary College opens on one site in 2022, almost 1,100 students are supported with free travel on Shepparton school buses each day. The Department’s Student Transport Unit will continue to support the Greater Shepparton Secondary College’s transition to the single site in 2022, with new transport timetables and information about accessing travel supports to be communicated through the College during Term 3 and 4, 2021. Thank you for raising this matter, I trust this information is of assistance. TAFE FUNDING In reply to Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (5 May 2021) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

There has never been a better time to train for a new career, with the Victorian Government’s Free TAFE initiative putting more courses at people’s fingertips than ever before. Free TAFE for priority courses reduces financial barriers for students to train in courses that lead to jobs in demand from Victorian employers. Free TAFE for Priority Courses began on 1 January 2019, and at the end of its first year over 39,700 students had commenced in Free TAFE courses across the TAFE network. This was 88 per cent higher than commencements in the same courses at the end of 2018. In 2020, a further 30,400 Free TAFE students commenced training for jobs in demand. Free TAFE continued to provide opportunities across key demographic cohorts including women, culturally and linguistically diverse students, students with no prior Certificate III and unemployed Victorians. Women accounted for more than half (58 per cent) of all Free TAFE commencements in 2020, up from 54 per cent in 2018. Over one in four (28 per cent) Free TAFE students in 2020 were from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, over one in four (29 percent) were unemployed and 43 per cent of Free TAFE students had no prior Certificate III. The five most popular Free TAFE courses for women in 2020 were the: • Diploma of Nursing • Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping • Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care • Certificate IV in Allied Health Assistance • Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. The most popular Free TAFE courses for students from a culturally and linguistically diverse background were the: • Certificate IV in Cyber Security • Diploma of Building and Construction (Building) • Diploma of Nursing • Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping. • Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care The most popular Free TAFE courses for unemployed Victorians were the: • Certificate IV in Cyber Security • Certificate III in Individual Support • Diploma of Nursing • Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care • Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2062 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

VICTIMS OF CRIME In reply to Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (5 May 2021) Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support):

I would like to thank Ms Maxwell MP for her important question on the development of a Framework for reporting on compliance with the Victim’s Charter 2006 by the Victims of Crime Commissioner. I agree that the importance of listening to victims and survivors with lived experience cannot be understated, which is why when the Victorian Government is developing legislation and policy, victims’ voices are represented and prioritised. This includes consultation with victim representatives on the Victims of Crime Consultative Committee, and through forums such as the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council. It is also why this government has expanded the Commissioner’s powers to not only accept individual complaints from victims, but to also report to Parliament on agency compliance with the Victims Charter and to carry out inquiries on systemic issues. The Victims of Crime Commissioner is an independent statutory officer, appointed under the Victims of Crime Commissioner Act 2015. As the office is independent from government and other agencies of the justice system, the government does not determine the consultation approach for the Commissioner’s Reporting Framework. VICTORIA POLICE PROCEDURES In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (5 May 2021) Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

It is the role of Victoria Police to serve the Victorian community and uphold the law to promote a safe, secure and orderly society as outlined in the Victoria Police Act 2013 and reflected in the Victoria Police Code of Conduct. Victoria Police officers rely on a variety of statutes and the common law to fulfil this role. Victoria Police expects the highest standards from its officers and actively enforces regulations relating to officer behaviour in the Victoria Police Code of Conduct. The oath undertaken by police officers requires them to discharge their duties legally, faithfully and according to the law. Police in Victoria are also required to carry out their role regardless of culture, faith, gender or background. Body-worn cameras are worn by all Victoria Police officers and the footage they capture provide greater accountability and create a safer environment for officers, staff and the community. The circumstances you describe have been subsequently reviewed by Professional Standards Command. Victoria Police advice is that the circumstances as described are not correct and the actions of the officers were reasonable and lawful. I support Victoria Police’s judgement when it comes to how best to use their powers and when they need to intervene. Victoria Police policies and procedures are published in the Victoria Police Manual (VPM). The VPM sets the behavioural, operational and administrative standards for the organisation and is divided into Policy Rules, which provide mandatory accountabilities, and supporting Procedures and Guidelines. Information regarding the VPM can be accessed from the Victoria Police website at www.police.vic.gov.au/procedures-and- legislation TAFE FUNDING In reply to Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (5 May 2021) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

There has never been a better time to train for a new career, with the Victorian Government’s Free TAFE initiative putting more courses at people’s fingertips than ever before. Free TAFE for priority courses reduces financial barriers for students to train in courses that lead to jobs in demand from Victorian employers. Free TAFE for Priority Courses began on 1 January 2019, and at the end of its first year over 39,700 students had commenced in Free TAFE courses across the TAFE network. This was 88 per cent higher than commencements in the same courses at the end of 2018. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2063

In 2020, a further 30,400 Free TAFE students commenced training for jobs in demand. Free TAFE continued to provide opportunities across key demographic cohorts including women, culturally and linguistically diverse students, students with no prior Certificate III and unemployed Victorians. Free TAFE is continuing to provide opportunities for women in the Eastern Metropolitan Region and across the State. Women comprised 60 per cent or around 3,000 of just over 5,000 Free TAFE commencements in in the Eastern Metropolitan Region in 2020. This was an increase of 3 percentage points compared to commencements in the same courses in 2018, before the introduction of Free TAFE. The five most popular Free TAFE courses for women in the region were the: • Diploma of Nursing • Certificate IV in Accounting and Bookkeeping • Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care • Certificate IV in Allied Health Assistance • Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. Some notable increases in the proportion of women undertaking particular courses in the East Metropolitan Region include: • Certificate III in Education Support: Up from 84 per cent in 2018 to 98 per cent in 2020 • Diploma of Accounting: Up from 73 per cent in 2018 to 93 per cent in 2020 • Certificate III in Tourism: Up from 42 per cent in 2018 to 77 per cent in 2020 • Certificate IV in Mental Health: Up from 57 per cent in 2018 to 73 per cent in 2020 • Diploma of Justice: Up from 66 per cent in 2018 to 72 per cent in 2020 • Certificate II in Furniture Making: Up from 20 per cent in 2018 to 32 per cent in 2020 • Certificate IV in Cyber Security: Up from 16 per cent in 2018 to 21 per cent in 2020 • Certificate IV in Building and Construction (Building): Up from 9 per cent in 2018 to 19 per cent in 2020. BILLS STREET, HAWTHORN, REDEVELOPMENT In reply to Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (5 May 2021) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

Government development proposals, such as by Homes Victoria, are submitted by proponents to the Council or Minister for Planning for assessment and to determine whether such proposals require referral to any other affected statutory bodies (referral authorities), such as Department of Transport for its input. It is the responsibility of the proponents when submitting a development proposal to consider and assess potential impacts on the transport network and justify a proposal with appropriate studies if necessary. In response to your request of releasing any road congestion studies on the impacts to the local roads and general traffic in the vicinity of the Bills Street redevelopment, I have been advised that the future development on Bills Street has not been referred to the Department of Transport for review of traffic impact at this stage. However, if the development proposal gets referred to the Department of Transport for input in future, the Department will work with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning as well as Boroondara City Council to assess potential impact to traffic operations on the arterial roads in the vicinity. Further information on the progress of this development can be found on the following website. https://engage.vic.gov.au/bills-street-hawthorn-redevelopment VICTORIAN SKILLS AUTHORITY In reply to Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (6 May 2021) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

Even before COVID-19, jobs in Victoria were changing evolving rapidly. Now, as we recover and seek to take advantage of new opportunities, it is imperative that we reset our approach to skills and training. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2064 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

That is why the Victorian Government is investing $86 million to establish the Victorian Skills Authority. The Authority will forge strong, active connections across the sector to better understand, plan and respond to Victoria’s dynamic needs. We know, from listening to all those involved, that a more streamlined, responsive and coordinated approach to skills and training is necessary to meet current and anticipated challenges and opportunities. The Skills for Victoria’s Growing Economy, Review led by the Hon Jenny Macklin, has reinforced this. A core part of the Victorian Skills Authority’s work will be bringing people together to build a comprehensive annual Victorian Skills Plan. This plan will be based on thorough, ongoing analysis of data and evidence, as well as local insights from employers, workers, unions, community groups and people with direct experience of our vocational education and training (VET) system. The Authority will also help to generate local solutions for local problems, promote quality improvement, and identify Victorian skills development needs. It will connect all parts of post-secondary education and training, including adult and community education providers and VET offered through TAFEs, dual-sector universities and registered training providers. The Victorian Skills Authority will be formally established in July 2021 and the first Victorian Skills Plan will be released in 2022. COVID-19 In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (6 May 2021) Mr PEARSON (Essendon—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Regulatory Reform, Minister for Government Services, Minister for Creative Industries):

The Victorian Government’s number one priority is the health and safety of the Victorian community, including returned travellers and staff working in the COVID-19 Accommodation Program. Hotels and staff within the Program are subject to strict requirements to ensure the primary objective of infection prevention and control (IPC) is met and maintained, in order to keep residents, staff and the community safe. The Victorian Government and COVID-19 Quarantine Victoria (CQV), in conjunction with public health experts, have continued to strengthen the IPC framework wherever possible in response to new and more infectious strains of coronavirus. CQV provides a professional, responsive accommodation service to support community safety and confidence. The Victorian Government and CQV expect the highest standards of all staff working within the COVID-19 Accommodation Program, especially those in leadership positions. Regarding management at Novotel Ibis Melbourne Central as recently cited in the media, these staff are no longer in the Program. CQV has filled these positions at Novotel Ibis Melbourne Central with appropriately qualified managers. BENDIGO KANGAN INSTITUTE, BROADMEADOWS In reply to Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (6 May 2021) Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education):

I thank the Member for the question and your strong advocacy for Broadmeadows. On 18 May 2021, I joined Frank McGuire, the Member for Broadmeadows, to announce the Government’s 2021–22 State Budget commitment of $60 million for a new Health and Community Centre of Excellence to be built at Bendigo Kangan Institute’s Broadmeadow campus. This funding commitment is among a $383.8 million investment in skills, training and higher education in this year’s budget. Put simply, this project is a gamechanger for Broadmeadows. The $60 million centre is a huge boost for healthcare training and jobs in Melbourne’s northern suburbs and will provide more opportunities and better services to locals. This new facility will support the delivery of in-demand training in health and community services in a contemporary and technologically advanced learning environment that will drive training commencements and completions. This will set students up on a path of employment and financial security, thereby reducing systemic disadvantage. Mr McGuire and I also co-signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the TAFE and Northern Health, which will strengthen the partnerships between education and health sectors. This is a significant agreement, WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2065

committing both BKI and Northern Health to work closely together. This will undoubtedly create new pathways into jobs. The Government’s Building Better TAFE fund has committed $200 million for improved TAFE facilities and campuses around Victoria. The Broadmeadows upgrades is part of this investment. Since 2019, we have contributed to the construction of a new Centre for Sustainable Construction at Box Hill Institute’s Lilydale campus; a Learning and Learning Hub at South West TAFE’s Warrnambool campus; new health and community services training facilities at GOTAFE’s Seymour campus; and the modernisation of The Gordon’s Culinary School in Geelong. We are also investing in whole-of-campus developments such as $40 million for the Melbourne Polytechnic Collingwood Campus Modernisation and $67.6 million for the Chisholm Institute Frankston Redevelopment Stage 2. Since 2015, the Labor Government has delivered more than $3.2 billion to rebuild the TAFE system and support universities and higher education to ensure Victorians have access to high quality training that leads to rewarding careers. Only Labor backs TAFE. POINT COOK ROAD In reply to Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (6 May 2021) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Victorian Government is delivering a $1.8 billion Western Roads Upgrade package. As part of this package, Palmers Road and Dunnings Road in Point Cook were upgraded and opened to traffic in December 2019. This has resulted in improvements to the movement of traffic along Point Cook Road, by providing motorists with an alternate upgraded route to the Princes Freeway. As part of the 2020–21 Victorian State Budget, funding was allocated to signalise the intersection of Point Cook Road and Sneydes Road, including the widening of Point Cook Road up to Sanctuary Lakes Boulevard. In addition to the extra capacity on Point Cook Road, this project will help manage congestion by providing safer and more convenient access to Sneydes Road on route to the Princes Freeway. I have asked the Department of Transport (DoT) to consider your feedback as part of the continual review of the road network. PET REGISTRATION FEES In reply to Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (6 May 2021) Ms THOMAS (Macedon—Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional Development):

The Victorian Government is committed to the promotion of animal welfare and responsible pet ownership in Victoria. Under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (the Act), local councils are required to make annual payments to government for each dog and cat registration fee collected. These are hypothecated funds that can only be used for legislated purposes as stated in the Act. These purposes include promoting responsible dog and cat ownership, animal welfare, domestic animal management research and the administration of the Act. Specifically, the funds are used to support a range of activities, including the following: • The Responsible Pet Ownership Program: Animal Welfare Victoria (AWV) delivers this program across Victoria’s primary schools and kindergartens. It typically conducts over 3,000 visits per year, reaching over 130,000 children with safety messages about living safely with dogs and responsible pet ownership. • Pet ownership and regulation resources: AWV routinely develops and disseminates responsible pet ownership resources for pet owners and holds seminars and training for local council animal management officers. • Administration and management of databases: For example, the Victorian Declared Dog Registry that is used by council and other authorised officers to track and manage dogs that have been declared menacing or dangerous under the Act. The Victorian Government recognises the work undertaken by rescue and foster care groups. Separately funded by our Government, the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF) grants program has awarded approximately WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2066 Legislative Council Tuesday, 8 June 2021

$3.5 million since it began in 2011, supporting animal shelters, foster carers, community vet clinics and other eligible organisations to continue their valued services in our community. The 2020–2021 State Budget allocated a $7.5 million boost to AWF grants, including: • $5 million over four years to support animal rehoming services to meet the costs of veterinary treatments, purchase of specific equipment and/or services to deliver training or rehabilitation for an animal. • $1.5 million over three years to enable delivery of free or low-cost desexing programs for cats and dogs owned by vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians. • $1 million over three years to support horse and pony rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming. SYDNEY ROAD, COBURG, SMALL BUSINESSES In reply to Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (6 May 2021) Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business):

The Victorian Government recognises the importance of ensuring strip shopping centres survive and thrive as vital community assets, which is why we have delivered a range of support programs to foster this outcome. The Coburg Traders Association was successful in receiving a grant through the Victorian Government’s Business Chambers and Trader Groups $5 million grants program. Further south along Sydney Road, the Sydney Road Brunswick Association was also successful securing a grant through the same program. In addition, plans are underway for the Small Business Bus to visit shopping centres in the City of Moreland. More broadly, the Victorian Government is committed to ensuring our sole traders, micro-businesses and SMEs have access to the support they need to adapt and re-build as a result of the pandemic, through cash grants, tax and fee relief, skills programs, mentoring and wellbeing assistance. Since March 2020, the Victorian Government has invested over $6 billion in support for businesses. On Sunday 21 February, the Victorian Government announced the $143 million Circuit Breaker Action Business Support Package to support eligible small businesses impacted by the recent circuit breaker lockdown. This package assisted small businesses, including sole traders, in sectors such as hospitality, food wholesaling, tourism, events, and selected retail. Four payroll tax relief measures have been announced by the Victorian Government to support businesses: • Waiving of 2019–20 payroll tax for employers with annual Victorian taxable wages up to $3 million—announced on 21 March 2020. • Exempting additional payments under the JobKeeper program from payroll tax—announced on 5 May 2020. • Deferring 2020–21 payroll tax liabilities for employers with Victorian payrolls up to $10 million, based on their 2019–20 financial year returns, until the 2021–22 financial year—announced on 13 September 2020. • Waiving of 2020–21 and 2021–22 payroll tax for eligible employers after applying the New Jobs payroll tax credit—announced in the 2020–21 State Budget on 24 November 2020. Further supports were announced in the 2021–22 State Budget: • Bringing forward tax cuts for businesses to 1 July 2021. • The payroll tax-free threshold will be increased to $700 000—reducing tax for 42,000 businesses across the state. • The regional employer rate will also reduce from 2.02 per cent to 1.2125 per cent from 1 July 2021, benefiting around 4,000 regional businesses. More information on all the Victorian Government business support measures is at the Business Victoria website: business.vic.gov.au. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Tuesday, 8 June 2021 Legislative Council 2067

MONT ALBERT AND SURREY HILLS TRAIN STATIONS In reply to Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (25 May 2021) Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop):

I thank the Member for Southern Metropolitan Region for his question regarding democratic processes relating to the removal of level crossings in the electorate of Box Hill. The project to remove the dangerous and congested level crossings at Union Road and Mont Albert Road is an outcome of the democratic process undertaken at the last State Election. The Andrews Labor Government promised to remove these level crossings, whereas the Victorian Liberal Opposition committed to withdrawing these level crossing removal projects as a cost savings measure. The documents that the Member refers to are not station designs. Station designs will be released shortly, and all members of the community will get to have their say as part of the project’s comprehensive consultation and engagement process. DANNY JAMIESON In reply to Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (25 May 2021) Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes):

The Conservation Regulator commenced an investigation into alleged illegal activity carried out by Mr Jamieson late last year on public land. Mr Jamieson has no current charges for any offences from the Conservation Regulator. I understand that the nature of the investigation into Mr Jamieson does not relate to any work he undertook whilst engaged as a contractor for fire response during the 2019–2020 fires in the Bendoc area and does not relate to any work he has been engaged to undertake for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning