PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

TUESDAY, 2 MARCH 2021

Internet: www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard

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 Resources ...... 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 and Emergency Services .... 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, and Minister for Small Business ...... 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

OFFICE-HOLDERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

Speaker The Hon. CW BROOKS

Deputy Speaker Ms JM EDWARDS

Acting Speakers Ms Blandthorn, Mr J Bull, Mr Carbines, Ms Connolly, Ms Couzens, Ms Crugnale, Mr Dimopoulos, Mr Edbrooke, Ms Halfpenny, Ms Kilkenny, Mr McGuire, Ms Richards, Mr Richardson, Ms Settle, Ms Suleyman, Mr Taylor and Ms Ward

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Premier The Hon. DM ANDREWS

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Premier The Hon. JA MERLINO

Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition The Hon. MA O’BRIEN Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party The Hon. LG McLEISH

Leader of The Nationals and Deputy Leader of the Opposition The Hon. PL WALSH Deputy Leader of The Nationals Ms SM RYAN

Leader of the House Ms JM ALLAN

Manager of Opposition Business Mr KA WELLS

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 ASSEMBLY FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT—FIRST SESSION

Member District Party Member District Party Addison, Ms Juliana Wendouree ALP Maas, Mr Gary Narre Warren South ALP Allan, Ms Jacinta Marie Bendigo East ALP McCurdy, Mr Timothy Logan Ovens Valley Nats Andrews, Mr Daniel Michael Mulgrave ALP McGhie, Mr Stephen John Melton ALP Angus, Mr Neil Andrew Warwick Forest Hill LP McGuire, Mr Frank Broadmeadows ALP Battin, Mr Bradley William Gembrook LP McLeish, Ms Lucinda Gaye Eildon LP Blackwood, Mr Gary John Narracan LP Merlino, Mr James Anthony Monbulk ALP Blandthorn, Ms Elizabeth Anne Pascoe Vale ALP Morris, Mr David Charles Mornington LP Brayne, Mr Chris Nepean ALP Neville, Ms Lisa Mary Bellarine ALP Britnell, Ms Roma South-West Coast LP Newbury, Mr James Brighton LP Brooks, Mr Colin William Bundoora ALP Northe, Mr Russell John Morwell Ind Bull, Mr Joshua Michael Sunbury ALP O’Brien, Mr Daniel David Gippsland South Nats Bull, Mr Timothy Owen Gippsland East Nats O’Brien, Mr Michael Anthony Malvern LP Burgess, Mr Neale Ronald Hastings LP Pakula, Mr Martin Philip Keysborough ALP Carbines, Mr Anthony Richard Ivanhoe ALP Pallas, Mr Timothy Hugh Werribee ALP Carroll, Mr Benjamin Alan Niddrie ALP Pearson, Mr Daniel James Essendon ALP Cheeseman, Mr Darren Leicester South Barwon ALP Read, Dr Tim Brunswick Greens Connolly, Ms Sarah Tarneit ALP Richards, Ms Pauline Cranbourne ALP Couzens, Ms Christine Anne Geelong ALP Richardson, Mr Timothy Noel Mordialloc ALP Crugnale, Ms Jordan Alessandra Bass ALP Riordan, Mr Richard Vincent Polwarth LP Cupper, Ms Ali Mildura Ind Rowswell, Mr Brad Sandringham LP D’Ambrosio, Ms Liliana Mill Park ALP Ryan, Stephanie Maureen Euroa Nats Dimopoulos, Mr Stephen Oakleigh ALP Sandell, Ms Ellen Melbourne Greens Donnellan, Mr Luke Anthony Narre Warren North ALP Scott, Mr Robin David Preston ALP Edbrooke, Mr Paul Andrew Frankston ALP Settle, Ms Michaela Buninyong ALP Edwards, Ms Janice Maree Bendigo West ALP Sheed, Ms Suzanna Shepparton Ind Eren, Mr John Hamdi Lara ALP Smith, Mr Ryan Warrandyte LP Foley, Mr Martin Peter Albert Park ALP Smith, Mr Timothy Colin Kew LP Fowles, Mr Will Burwood ALP Southwick, Mr David James Caulfield LP Fregon, Mr Matt Mount Waverley ALP Spence, Ms Rosalind Louise Yuroke ALP Green, Ms Danielle Louise Yan Yean ALP Staikos, Mr Nicholas Bentleigh ALP Guy, Mr Matthew Jason Bulleen LP Staley, Ms Louise Eileen Ripon LP Halfpenny, Ms Bronwyn Thomastown ALP Suleyman, Ms Natalie St Albans ALP Hall, Ms Katie Footscray ALP Tak, Mr Meng Heang Clarinda ALP Halse, Mr Dustin Ringwood ALP Taylor, Mr Jackson Bayswater ALP Hamer, Mr Paul Box Hill ALP Theophanous, Ms Katerina Northcote ALP Hennessy, Ms Jill Altona ALP Thomas, Ms Mary-Anne Macedon ALP Hibbins, Mr Samuel Peter Prahran Greens Tilley, Mr William John Benambra LP Hodgett, Mr David John Croydon LP Vallence, Ms Bridget Evelyn LP Horne, Ms Melissa Margaret Williamstown ALP Wakeling, Mr Nicholas Ferntree Gully LP Hutchins, Ms Natalie Maree Sykes Sydenham ALP Walsh, Mr Peter Lindsay Murray Plains Nats Kairouz, Ms Marlene Kororoit ALP Ward, Ms Vicki Eltham ALP Kealy, Ms Emma Jayne Lowan Nats Wells, Mr Kimberley Arthur Rowville LP Kennedy, Mr John Ormond Hawthorn ALP Williams, Ms Gabrielle Dandenong ALP Kilkenny, Ms Sonya Carrum ALP Wynne, Mr Richard William Richmond ALP

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS ALP—Labor Party; Greens—The Greens; Ind—Independent; LP—Liberal Party; Nats—The Nationals.

Legislative Assembly committees

Economy and Infrastructure Standing Committee Ms Addison, Mr Blackwood, Ms Couzens, Mr Eren, Ms Ryan, Ms Theophanous and Mr Wakeling.

Environment and Planning Standing Committee Ms Connolly, Mr Fowles, Ms Green, Mr Hamer, Mr McCurdy, Mr Morris and Ms Vallence.

Legal and Social Issues Standing Committee Mr Battin, Ms Couzens, Ms Kealy, Ms Settle, Mr Southwick, Ms Suleyman and Mr Tak.

Privileges Committee Ms Allan, Mr Carroll, Mr Guy, Ms Hennessy, Mr McGuire, Mr Morris, Mr Pakula, Ms Ryan and Mr Wells.

Standing Orders Committee The Speaker, Ms Allan, Mr Cheeseman, Ms Edwards, Mr Fregon, Ms McLeish, Ms Sheed, Ms Staley and Mr Walsh.

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 651 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 651 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 651 Final Report ...... 651 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Standing and sessional orders ...... 668 MEMBERS Minister for Water ...... 669 Absence ...... 669 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Ministerial conduct ...... 670 Ministers statements: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 671 Ministerial conduct ...... 671 Ministers statements: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 672 Mental health services ...... 672 Ministers statements: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 675 Gas imports ...... 675 Ministers statements: Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 676 Royal Commission into Crown Melbourne ...... 676 Ministers statements: mental health reform ...... 677 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Rowville electorate ...... 677 Box Hill electorate ...... 678 Ovens Valley electorate ...... 678 Burwood electorate...... 678 Forest Hill electorate ...... 678 Hawthorn electorate ...... 679 Mildura electorate ...... 679 Broadmeadows electorate ...... 679 Polwarth electorate ...... 679 Lara electorate ...... 680 BILLS Cemeteries and Crematoria Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 680 Introduction and first reading ...... 680 Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Arbitration) Bill 2021...... 681 Introduction and first reading ...... 681 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 681 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee ...... 681 Alert Digest No. 3 ...... 681 DOCUMENTS Documents ...... 682 BILLS Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 ...... 682 Council’s agreement ...... 682 Owners Corporations and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2019 ...... 682 Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 ...... 682 Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Bill 2020 ...... 682 Royal assent ...... 682 Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 683 Appropriation ...... 683 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Program ...... 683 MEMBERS STATEMENTS Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 687 COVID-19 ...... 687 Live at the Bowl ...... 687 International Women’s Day ...... 688

Mental health...... 688 Wangaratta Cup ...... 688 Cambodia ...... 688 Berwick College ...... 689 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 689 Horace Petty estate ...... 689 Box Hill transit interchange ...... 690 Salvation Army Box Hill Corps ...... 690 Surrey Hills Music Festival ...... 690 Surrey Hills and Canterbury cricket clubs ...... 690 Small business support ...... 690 Sunbury electorate sports facilities ...... 691 COVID-19 ...... 691 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 691 COVID-19 ...... 692 Sunshine private hospital ...... 692 Bayswater electorate sporting clubs ...... 692 Bayswater education plan ...... 693 TAFE funding ...... 693 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 693 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 693 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System ...... 694 Pascoe Vale South Primary School ...... 694 BILLS Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 ...... 694 Second reading ...... 694 ADJOURNMENT Dunolly independent living units ...... 731 Plastic bag ban ...... 731 Gippsland East events ...... 732 Glenroy College ...... 732 Port Fairy emergency services ...... 733 Burwood electorate mental health round table ...... 733 Greater Shepparton Secondary College ...... 734 International Women’s Day ...... 734 Office of the Conservation Regulator ...... 735 Graffiti prevention grants ...... 736 Responses ...... 736

ANNOUNCEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 651

Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Honourable members met in Royal Exhibition Building at 10.00 am for a special sitting of Parliament in accordance with resolution of house of 19 February and a proclamation of the Governor of 25 February. The SPEAKER (Hon. Colin Brooks) took the chair at 10.02 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The SPEAKER (10:03): We acknowledge the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land upon which we are meeting. We pay our respects to them, their culture, their elders past, present and future, and elders from other communities who may be here today. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM The SPEAKER (10:03): Honourable members; the Premier; the Leader of the Opposition; the Minister for Mental Health; the Shadow Minister for Mental Health; the President of the Legislative Council; members of the Council; royal commissioners Penny Armytage, AM, Professor Allan Fels, AO, Dr Alex Cockram and Professor Bernadette McSherry; and most importantly the many guests here today who have lived experience in or with or who work in the mental health sector, I want to warmly welcome you all to this special sitting of the Legislative Assembly along with members of the Council. In a few moments the Clerk of the Assembly will officially table the report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We will then hear from Penny Armytage, AM, chair of the royal commission; Patrick McGorry, AO, chair of the commission’s expert advisory committee; Ms Amelia Morris and Mr Alistair Gabb, both lived experience advocates; the Premier; the Leader of the Opposition; the Minister for Mental Health; and the Shadow Minister for Mental Health. We understand that it may be difficult for those here and watching at home given the discussion about mental health conditions and lived experience, including suicide. You may find some of the content of today’s event difficult, distressing or challenging. Please reach out if you require assistance. We have professional support services located here on site to the sides of where people are sitting. I might just ask those support workers to raise their hands so people can see them. Thank you. For those watching the broadcast, if you need help, please do not hesitate to reach out. Details of support, including 24/7 hotlines, are available on the live stream’s webpage. The Legislative Assembly chose to meet here today, in this grand building where our nation’s Parliament first met nearly 120 years ago, so that all MPs could be together with many of you who truly understand how important a strong and supportive mental health system is. We will now move through some of the processes. Firstly, I inform the members of the Assembly that the Governor has issued a proclamation fixing the places for the dispatch of business of the Legislative Assembly. Now we move to the tabling of the report. Documents ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Final Report The CLERK: Under the Inquiries Act 2014, I table the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. Ordered to be published.

DOCUMENTS 652 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

The SPEAKER: The report will be emailed to members now, and a summary booklet will be made available at the conclusion of this morning’s proceedings to everybody. It is now my pleasure to invite Penny Armytage, AM, chair of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, to address the house. Ms Penny ARMYTAGE, AM (10:06): Thank you, Speaker. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the people of the Kulin nation. I pay respects to elders past, present and emerging and any elders here today. I am joined by fellow commissioners, Dr Alex Cockram, Professor Allan Fels and Professor Bernadette McSherry. I am privileged to stand before you here today This commission was established in February 2019 because the mental health system was failing. Since this time, people have engaged with us openly, collaboratively and with enormous strength and courage, and in a hope of shaping a better future. Today I will share just a small selection of the inputs we received to emphasise the observations I am making. These inputs, combined with a vast array of data, analysis, research and evidence gathered during two years of intense work, inform the conclusions and recommendations of our 3000-page, five-volume report. The power of human experience united and strengthened our resolve. We take great pride in the fact that this royal commission engaged broadly and received more than 12 500 contributions from individuals and organisations from across Victoria and beyond. By any measure, this is a historic level of engagement with any royal commission. Our inquiry focused very deliberately on the impact of a broken system on people as well as the great opportunities that come with a chance to reform. The contributions we received left us in no doubt that the system had indeed failed and had been failing for decades. Honor Eastly, a witness before the commission, shared:

It wasn’t until I started working in advocacy … that I started to understand that a big part of what I was … struggling with was a broken and traumatic system. I had, up until that point, thought that what was happening was because I was a broken and ill person. The mental health system has catastrophically failed to live up to expectations and is woefully unprepared for current and future challenges. The 2019–20 severe bushfire season and the COVID-19 pandemic have shone further light on the pressures on the system. Personally I was shocked by what I heard and what I saw during the course of this commission. The system was not compromised in part: its foundations were broken. Despite many members of the mental health workforce doing their best, demand has outstripped supply, the system reacts to mental health crises rather than preventing them and the preferences of consumers are often ignored. The views of families are too often dismissed and their needs inadequately supported. These are not glib statements. These are people’s true and confronting experiences. And yet this is a problem that affects us all and belongs to us all. Most of us or someone we love or care for will experience poor mental health in their lifetime. We must be able to depend on a responsive and compassionate mental health and wellbeing system. There is, however, much cause for hope. We have been heartened by the increased focus on mental health and wellbeing by all levels of government and in the public domain. We are buoyed by this hope and believe that the environment for reform is now. There is an urgent and critical case for change. Victoria’s mental health system is under-resourced; there has simply never been enough investment in it. The implications for consumers and families are stark. People cannot access enough treatment, care and support, or any at all. Typically this means that the system offers too little, too late. Last year the system responded to less than one-third of the estimated demand for community-based mental health services. Surprisingly, for those who were seen by a consultant psychiatrist, the average total service hours is estimated to be just 2 hours per person per year. This is incredibly compromising for everyone—consumers, families and the workforce alike. A lack of resources has forced services to raise the threshold for whom they can see. Again and again

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 653 we heard from people and their families, at times in harrowing detail, about the negative impact of being told that they were not sick enough or not suicidal enough to access services, and the sometimes tragic consequences of this. As one person described:

Reaching out for help … is hard enough … But … to then be turned away from treatment makes the anxiety about reaching out even worse for fear of being told you aren’t worthy of treatment. It is unacceptable that people are being turned away from service, often in their darkest hour. Those in the workforce find themselves trying to do their best in a system that constrains them. For a workforce driven by empathy and motivated to make a difference, this is particularly distressing. As the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists explained:

Psychiatrists and other mental health workers, are facing moral distress: a desire and knowledge to do the right thing, but system constraints make it impossible to do so. Serious workforce shortages mean that people may feel overwhelmed and under-resourced. One member of the workforce told us:

In my workplace … the team is very burnt out and mentally exhausted … and people keep turning up to work, because of not letting the team down. We must acknowledge that as a broader community we have allowed the system’s failings to go almost unnoticed for too long. The failings of our community to demand a mental health system as strong as the rest of our health system says much about the stigma and discrimination against people living with mental illness. This in part explains why public investment in mental health has remained so low, why complacency and meagre expectations have stifled reform and why the mental health system has been relegated to the shadows. The blunt differences between the mental health system and the broader health system were highlighted by one parent, who reflected, ‘I have a son who has leukaemia and now a daughter with a mental health challenge. When my son was diagnosed with leukaemia we were immediately connected into an incredible amount of support and services, including those outside the hospital. Our experience when my daughter’s mental illness was diagnosed was completely the opposite’. These disparities are shameful and must stop. The mental health system must never again be neglected like this. It matters too much to too many. We must address the fact that the mental health system is imbalanced. Under-resourcing has led to an over-reliance on medication, and too little is offered by way of therapeutic and recovery-oriented services. And we know that this is not how the workforce wants to work. There is not enough focus on promotion of mental health and wellbeing despite the clear economic and social benefits. There is much to be gained from greater investment in the system. These opportunities relate mainly to relieving the profound human toll that a failing system has on individuals and families. There are, however, also benefits for the economy and the wider community that accrue from investing in improved mental health. Our analysis suggests that a 15 per cent reduction in the level of need achieved through earlier and expanded access to services would deliver $1.1 billion in additional economic activity in Victoria. Critically, we are failing to safeguard the good mental health and wellbeing of our future generations. Many opportunities to support people early in life are lost. This undermines the ability of children and young people to experience their best mental health and wellbeing both now and into adulthood. At the other end of the spectrum there is a large service gap for older Victorians. Suicide continues to have a profound effect on our community. In 2019 there were 718 deaths by suicide in Victoria. That is more than double the road toll. While suicide is not always associated with mental illness, suicide of people who have not been able to get the help and treatment they need from mental illness are indicative of a failing mental health system. Inequities, including those that relate to how people access mental health services, need to be tackled. While poor mental health does not

DOCUMENTS 654 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 discriminate, some people, including Aboriginal people, LGBTIQ+ people, refugees, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and people living with disabilities, experience additional barriers. Where people live can detrimentally impact services they can access. This situation can be worse for people in rural and regional areas. Additionally, the abandonment of carers and young carers, some just kids, by multiple service systems has been appalling. As one witness has told us:

My caring role for mum was always my first priority growing up … I dropped out of year 12 as the caring responsibilities and my own mental health … all got too much to be able to manage the workload. I feel like it has set me back in life. For some young people, meeting other young carers at a commission consultation was the first time they had made a connection and felt supported. Many people who access the services are not treated with dignity and respect, and people are not supported to make decisions. Sadly, inpatient units too often feel frightening and unsafe. The prevalence of interpersonal and sexual violence, particularly towards women, is entrenched and unacceptable. Consumers have their human rights breached through the use of compulsory treatment, seclusion and restraint. The rates of compulsory treatment used in Victoria are increasing and remain high across all age groups, with a significant proportion of people subject to compulsory treatment for extended periods of time. Safeguards have not produced the reductions desired, and we are not convinced that compulsory treatment is used as a last resort. The following reflection from a consumer explains how a reformed system may change this:

I reflect on these three compulsory admissions with sadness. I wonder how my mental health trajectory could have been different if the GP I’d seen in the lead up to my first episode had organised an urgent psychiatric referral and I’d been supported to sleep; if the [Crisis Assessment and Treatment Team] had come the first time I’d called them and helped prevent my second episode; if the private hospital had treated me adequately rather than discharging me and prevented my third episode. The mental health system should be set up to support people, not to compound distress and trauma. These themes are just a snapshot at what it means to have a broken system. For too long the profound human, societal and economic toll of a failing system has been ignored. We know that a collection of discrete reforms to an antiquated system is not viable. We have recommended a fundamental redesign. The words of a participant in a community consultation speak to what is needed. They said:

… [w]e don’t want to fill in the pot holes, we want a new road. Our inquiry has shone a light on a failed system. We cannot change the past. We can, however, demand a new way forward. Today time does not allow a detailed explanation of our findings nor the rationale behind each of our recommendations. This is detailed in our final report, which puts 65 recommendations and builds on the nine recommendations from our interim report. Together they address our letters patent and recommend large-scale transformational change. The transformation we have recommended involves the full continuum of effort from prevention and promotion of mental health through to how the system assists people who require ongoing and intensive support. Importantly, our recommendations establish a new mental health and wellbeing system that is built on compassion. Many people spoke about the difference compassionate care, kindness and connection made to their lives. This has resonated with us as commissioners. Now I will briefly speak to some of our reforms that exemplify these themes of compassion and connection. First, we must acknowledge that respect for the inherent dignity of people living with mental illness or psychological distress and ensuring their full and effective participation in society are fundamental tenets of a compassionate system. To see this, we must see fundamental cultural change and a future system in which power must be redistributed so that consumers can lead and influence decisions on an equal basis to others. In a compassionate system, services will be delivered based on

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 655 a philosophy of ‘How can we help?’. People will be able to access a range of services that respond to their needs and preferences and that are delivered by a multidisciplinary workforce. A balanced future system with a careful mix of hospital- and community-based services will mean that most care is provided close to people’s homes and in their local communities. Through new and innovative ways of working there will be a broad range of services, including bed-based services in the community. With the primary care system, this will go a long way to addressing the services gap experienced by people, including those in the missing middle. Our reforms also look beyond the system, recognising that other social services such as housing, education, the justice system and the places we live, work, learn and connect shape our mental health and wellbeing. In recommending a holistic approach we have drawn on the knowledge long held by Aboriginal people and other diverse communities that connection to land, culture, spirituality, family and community all influence mental health and wellbeing. Good mental health and wellbeing are closely tied to our connections to each other. Families and communities are where people have the relationships and the resources they can draw on to help manage distress and move towards recovery. In this sense, we all have a role to play. The centrality of community is also emphasised through our reforms for expanded community-based mental health and wellbeing services. For example, 50 to 60 new local mental health and wellbeing services for adults and older adults will be established. This will shift the focal point of the system away from emergency departments of hospitals. For those in crisis, police and ambulance call-outs and emergency departments will no longer be the only options. New consumer-led safe places will be available for people experiencing distress. Substantial investment in and reform of the community-based mental health system is needed. Historic underinvestment and demand pressures mean that the system is overwhelmed. Last year the gap between what the service provided by the way of community-based services and what was required was around 3.3 million hours. This measure of unmet demand underscores a substantial gap in treatment, care and support that needs to be urgently addressed. We have also made a range of recommendations to ensure the system is attuned to promoting inclusion and overcoming inequities. Aboriginal people told us that embedding healing practices is critical to supporting resilience, healing and recovery. Building on our interim report we have recommended the delivery of healing centres to complement social and emotional wellbeing services delivered by Aboriginal community controlled health organisations. New expectations on services will mean the needs of Victoria’s diverse communities will be recognised and responded to. Support for LGBTIQ+ people will be strengthened, including support to navigate and access the system and the establishment of a tailored after-care service for those experiencing suicidal behaviour. Disparities in service access and mental health and wellbeing outcomes across rural and regional communities will also be resolved, with the cost of rural service delivery acknowledged, services expanded and strategies established to attract and retain more mental health workers. Stable housing is a key pillar to our agenda of overcoming inequities. We have ensured that people living with mental illness will be recognised as a priority population for housing, and supported housing places will be provided for young people. We have made several recommendations to get the system’s foundations right. Consumers, families and carers will lead and partner with others in reform. A new consumer-led agency will be established to support the development of organisations and services led by and for consumers. The role of families will be properly recognised and new family- and carer-led centres established across the state to support them. A new, independent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will hold the Victorian government to account for the performance of the system as well as the implementation of

DOCUMENTS 656 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 these reforms. There will be sustained focus on radically reducing compulsory treatment and eliminating restrictive practices, as well as tackling the unacceptable rate of gender-based violence. The commission has called for a fundamental modernisation of the system. Adaptable service delivery is crucial to improving people’s experiences. The Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing recommended in our interim report will be pivotal to the translation of evidence into practice. The future system will be enabled through appropriate and accessible digital platforms, improving access, information sharing and continuity of care. And, importantly, our reforms cannot be delivered without the workforce, the beating heart of the system. Our reforms will support a workforce that is skilled and diverse. There will be increased support for workforce wellbeing as well as for practice and professional development activities. Collectively these and our other reforms create a future system where people will have access to high-quality services that are compassionate, responsive and respectful. We have moved beyond filling in the potholes; we have created an entirely new road. Implementation of the commission’s recommendations will not be easy. These recommendations are, however, pragmatic and achievable. They have been informed by careful analysis and significant input. The transformation recommended will not come cheaply, but the costs of inaction are too great. This report is truly a collective effort. Showing exceptional determination, people have shared their deeply personal stories and analysis of the system to shape a better future. We are forever indebted to their openness and collaboration. Their experiences and ideas have shaped our reforms. A glimpse of the generosity displayed by the community is available via the personal stories in our reports and witness statements on our website. This generosity will also be exemplified by what you will hear from Al Gabb and Amelia Morris shortly. Thank you to all who have contributed, and thank you to my fellow commissioners for bringing their expertise and commitment to this task. Thank you also to our hardworking and talented commission staff, notably our skilful CEO, Jodie Geissler. The commission has been ably assisted by its expert advisory committee, chaired by Professor Pat McGorry, and our specialist advisers, including lived experience advisers and counsel assisting. It is imperative that the shared commitment, the ambition and collaborative efforts displayed throughout this inquiry continue across government, both federal and state, service providers and the community. The importance of good mental health and wellbeing cannot be sidelined any longer and implementation should not be delayed. This is not someone else’s problem; this is about all of us. Good mental health and wellbeing are responsibilities shared by government and the community. The Victorian community’s optimism and desire for change provides an opportunity to create reform that will last. Political and cross-party interest at the highest level is important if longstanding pleas for reform are to be acted on. This requires strong leadership to ensure change endures. A clear path for reform has been set and the momentum for change cannot be lost. The hopes of so many Victorians rest on the implementation of the commission’s report. Our inquiry is over. It is time for action. The SPEAKER: Thank you, Ms Armytage. I now invite Patrick McGorry, AO, to address the house. Professor Patrick McGORRY, AO (10:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by echoing Penny Armytage’s acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the land on which we gather today and pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging as well, but I would also like to acknowledge everyone around the world who has suffered from mental illness and their families and pay my respects and our respects to their suffering and their resilience as well. This is not just a historic day for Victoria, but it is an intensely moving one, and I fully expect it will prove to be historic for the rest of Australia and the global community as well. We are at a watershed, as Penny just illustrated. Mental illness has been seriously neglected within our society and health systems. We—I—have seen many false dawns. Twenty-five years ago in Victoria we uprooted mental health care from the 19th-century asylums in which I trained and entrusted it to the mainstream healthcare system, closing thousands of beds with a solemn promise that new community services

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 657 would mean that people could mostly avoid long hospital stays and stigma would fade away. This was a promise broken not just in Victoria but all around the developed world, and it has resulted in what our Premier has called a broken system—the first politician in the world honest enough to openly admit to this inexcusable but worldwide policy failure. This failure is fundamentally a human rights issue. As the director of the Castan Centre, Professor Kevin Bell, told the commission:

In human rights terms, this is a matter of obligation, not policy. Victoria— and I could add Australia—

is not like a developing nation where lack of resources is an explanation for under-investment in health. And by the way, when I was asked over the years which Australian state was doing best on mental health care I was forced to answer, ‘It’s like comparing Botswana to Mozambique’. So that echoes what Kevin actually said, too. This global and local failure has led to a profound human toll and many thousands of preventable deaths, blighted lives and suffering immeasurable. I want to quote an Italian political theorist here, Antonio Gramsci, who said:

The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born … I had that feeling in the 1990s when the old mental hospital system was in its death throes. However, the child born at that time had neglectful parents. Today our new parents have decided to give the child a second chance. Victorians will be deeply grateful to the Premier and his government, with the support of the opposition, for realising the only way to create the authorising environment for the scale of reform required was a royal commission. And Victoria has responded, as Penny said, magnificently to this opportunity—absolutely magnificently. I am proud to be a Victorian. The commission has produced a report of unique and unprecedented value. I have seen 50 of these reports surface and gather dust—not this time. So I would like to pay tribute to the wave of personal testimonies that have been a north star for our commission’s work. I would also like to thank the expert advisory committee, which I had the privilege of chairing, as well as the commissioners. These stories bring to life the damning statistics which show the system has failed to provide compassionate and expert care to two out of three people who needed it and locked out nearly 100 000 Victorians every year. This is in large part responsible for the deaths of the 718 people who died from suicide in 2019. Many of them were reaching out for care. Yesterday Sean Kelly wrote in the Age about how trauma and suffering can catalyse major reform. In fact it is one of the main ways reform actually does occur. Racism, child sexual abuse and family violence are classic examples, and mental illness is another. Not only has trauma been a strong theme within the commission, as Penny said, but I can go back to the late 1980s when one of my first pieces of research revealed that people in recovery from psychosis experienced post-traumatic stress symptoms such as nightmares and intrusive memories of their illness episode. These derived in part from an often terrifying experience that people have during the eye of a psychotic storm but also from the devastating experiences of seclusion and restraint, which the commission has actually tackled. A broken system which only allows people into care when they are in a desperately ill state means that these practices become commonplace. No-one wants to react in that way, but people are placed in impossible situations on a daily basis. So the recommendation to reduce and ultimately eliminate these practices is not only welcome but long overdue. A major part of this solution is to offer expert care much earlier. My colleagues and I at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre and now Orygen have spent most of the last 30 years creating and exporting evidence-based models of early intervention which not only transform the experience of patients and families but actually improve outcomes and save money. Early intervention saves lives and futures. In the treatment of cancer the top priority is to detect and treat the person in the very earliest stage of illness, not to wait until it has advanced to a late stage or treatment is ineffective or too late. It is exactly the same with all the non-communicable diseases. We would not dream of turning away two out of three people with chest pain or an early breast lump and dismiss

DOCUMENTS 658 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 them with the notion that their illness is not serious enough to deserve care. So it was a real breakthrough to see the value of early intervention boldly asserted in recommendation 1 in the report. Intervening early means a special focus on young people, who bear the major burden of the onset for mental disorders, a burden that is increasing for them year by year. And they have been most heavily impacted by COVID, as we all know. Yet we turn away even more young people than adults. Currently three out of four young people are turned away every single day. One of the most overdue and far-reaching recommendations that the royal commission makes is to shift the upper boundary for specialist youth mental health care to the 26th birthday to align not only with Headspace but with all the scientific evidence that we have. We need to make youth mental health the strongest part of the system. Heavy investment during this stage of life in early intervention is the best buy in mental health care. It will pay for itself and steadily shrink the flow of people into longer term care within the adult mental health system. The commission’s changes here are absolutely transformational. I especially welcome the strong recommendations for genuine support for families and carers. Like most Australians, several people in my own family have experienced mental illness, and we have felt the impact that mental distress has on loved ones ourselves. We have not only been unsupported by the system but marginalised by poor work practices and, sad to say, prejudice against families as well. For young people, while not always the case, families form the vital scaffolding essential for recovery and a productive and fulfilling life. Families often form the only safety net protecting someone with a mental illness from sinking into poverty, homelessness, incarceration or premature death. Most of us live in families and, until proven otherwise, families must be included across the life span wherever possible. The principal focus of the commission and here today has been quite rightly on lived experience. However, I also want to highlight the lived experience of dedicated clinicians and other service providers who have struggled to help people, as Penny said, with mental illness and their families. They have suffered moral injury by being forced to turn away seriously ill people and by having to provide care that they know falls well short of what is possible. Too many clinicians have been harmed too through the neglect of mental health care, including being placed in harm’s way. At the same time, under harsh conditions, they have helped many people and saved many lives, and a substantial minority of clinicians too have lived experience with mental illness. There is no more ‘us and them’. The report avoids another classic false dichotomy between bed-based services and community mental health services that has plagued mental health policy for three decades. A suite of options for new beds is recommended, with further growth in numbers. However, the commission has recognised that the centre of gravity for mental health care must be located in the community and in local communities as far as possible. This means that the governance and financing of mental health care must be transformed. Mental health care will be empowered by the measures that Penny mentioned and protected within the health system for the first time through major changes to governance, financing and transparency. No more will we see precious mental health dollars diverted to areas perceived as more worthy by cash-poor, hospital-centric CEOs. The establishment of eight regional boards, which will ultimately assume the role of commissioning mental health care, will shift the centre of gravity away from large hospitals, which inevitably struggle to value and support community mental health care. The missing middle will no longer be marooned in a no-man’s-land. The commission has emphasised that the implementation of this historic blueprint is now our challenge. They warn against those responsible repeating the work of the commission or revisiting the decisions. This warning must be heeded by government. Gough Whitlam understood this. He said once a compromise was made, once the spirit and pace of reform slackened, it was quite likely lost forever. Reform is hard, and there are always those who have something to lose. I spent my whole working life seeking to engineer reform, and I know firsthand that vested interests and naysayers who operate as merchants of doubt will seek to delay and derail even the changes that are long overdue and have public support. However, I have never before witnessed an authorising environment so strong as that created by this government and this process.

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 659

On an equally optimistic note, I met with the Prime Minister last week, and I believe that the federal government are on the same wavelength and willing to co-invest collaboratively with Victoria to bring to life a blueprint which can inspire and shape a national agreement in mental health care by the end of this year—so this is a national challenge, a national reform, a national opportunity. Victoria has been responsible for many of the oases of reform in mental health developed over the last three decades, but it is now time to green the desert and make these oases the standard of care. These oases have three features: they have the power of lived experience at their heart, they have scientific evidence and research and they have expert clinicians who are very dedicated and compassionate. This is possible, and there are examples of this that exist today and that have always existed. Victoria can again become the epicentre of national and even global reform in mental health. One final ingredient to mention is scientific research and innovation, which are the last few recommendations of the report. While our existing treatments, if implemented in a timely, compassionate and expert manner, will reduce the impact of mental illness, we desperately need to invest in discovery-based research and clinical trials—just as we have in cancer and other areas in health care, the most dramatic example being vaccine development. That has to be an essential thread and element in mental health care. We need to perfect and embrace new technologies such as virtual reality, digital mental health and telehealth and make them fully accessible and integrated with face- to-face, human-based care. We need to find better and safer medications, as Penny hinted at, to cure and relieve mental illness—yes, I mentioned the c-word. The royal commission has completed its work. It is now in the government’s hands and our own as Victorians to unleash the transformation to a mentally healthy Victoria. As the royal commission reimagines mental health in Victoria, I am going to close with a quote from Floki, one of the characters from the series Vikings on SBS. He says:

The lure of an imaginary land. Traveling somewhere that doesn’t exist? Of course I’m coming. Thank you. The SPEAKER: Thank you, Professor McGorry. I now call Ms Amelia Morris to address the house. Ms Amelia MORRIS (10:43): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My name is Amelia Morris. I am 22 years old, and I have a lived experience of mental health issues. For around six years now I have been navigating Victoria’s mental health system. My mental health first began to deteriorate in my early teens. I initially sought treatment in the community through Headspace and my local GP. Being in country Victoria, the closest Headspace was a 45-minute drive away, with no public transport. The support I received from these primary care services was inadequate for my needs, and my mental health further broke down. As I passed the halfway point of my 10 Medicare-funded sessions, I worried about what would happen when they ran out. I was getting worse, not better, and I began to panic. I became more and more ill until I eventually attempted suicide in June 2015. I ended up in the local emergency department, where the staff attempted to find a bed in a mental health ward for me, but there was nothing available anywhere in the state. I stayed overnight in the hospital. When I saw a mental health worker the next morning, they did not want to refer me to a psychiatric hospital. I got the impression the worker felt that I was being dramatic and attention seeking. He just did not seem to think my situation was serious enough to warrant further care. I was finally able to get a referral from my GP, but there were no beds available for a further three days. For three days I had to be constantly watched. My mum could not work because I could not be left alone. No-one from the local hospital followed up with me or my family. Eventually I was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Melbourne, 2 hours away from my home, my family and my friends. On 6 June 2015 I had my 17th birthday in the hospital ICU. I was in hospital for 2½ months. I was isolated from my loved ones because they were so far away and they could only visit me on weekends with great difficulty. This distance was amplified by the fact that I had limited access to my phone. I felt so incredibly lonely. The whole experience felt so wrong. Somehow my expectations for my teenage years did not involve spending months in an adult psych ward.

DOCUMENTS 660 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

I eventually received a treatment that helped to stabilise me, but it required regular hospital admissions. Whenever I was released from hospital there was no follow-up care or support. I would just hand in my TV remote and go, and that was the end of it. To abruptly go from the very controlled environment of a hospital back to everyday life without any kind of support was very difficult. It felt very much like I was left to fend for myself. As a result of my interactions with the mental health system, my faith and my trust in something that was supposed to help me disappeared. I felt abandoned and alone when I desperately needed support, and sometimes I have felt like I have been harmed instead of helped. When I asked for help, which in itself was incredibly difficult, there was no help available for me. It is all well and good to tell someone to ask for help, but what happens when you ask and there is no answer? The mental health care I have been able to access—that I have had to fight so hard to access— has been barely enough to keep me stable. It sometimes seemed like hospital was not a place to get better; it just stopped me getting worse. There was nothing for me between primary care and an emergency department, and even when I wanted to die I still had to struggle to get help. The Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System is a crucial opportunity. It is a chance for real and meaningful change to ensure that the mental health system can properly respond to those who turn to it. I am hopeful that we can begin to repair the system to ensure that it stops failing the people that need it most. I hope for a system that values and centres lived experience at the core of every decision. Too often we have been an afterthought in our own care and our own lives. Our lived experience should be fundamental in any decision that impacts us. Any reform also needs to ensure that the social determinants of mental health are acknowledged and addressed. The mental health system cannot do this alone, but wider inequality amplifies barriers to accessing treatment and recovery, and this needs to be accounted for in any effective system. I hope for a system that provides follow-up care and support and does not leave people to navigate the confusing process of recovery alone. I hope for a system where we no longer have to fight to get the help we need. Every person who needs it should be able to access appropriate, affordable and specialised care. My experience shows the importance of having youth-specific services in particular. I do not think I would have felt so isolated and abnormal if I had been around other people my age experiencing the things that I was experiencing. This system has harmed and failed so many people, and there needs to be fundamental change to help mend the hurt that these failures have caused. I hope that we can start to build a system that helps people thrive, not just survive. Thank you. The SPEAKER: Thank you so much for those remarks, Ms Morris. I now invite Mr Alistair Gabb to address the house. Mr Alistair GABB (10:49:): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Amelia. I am here today at this auspicious joint standing of Parliament as an individual; however, I am not here alone or for myself. To the many people who had the courage to submit to the commission, their voice is heard. To the many more in numbers who have not had their voices heard, I take courage from you all today to stand here. My name is Al Gabb. I am a fifth-generation farmer based in western Victoria. While the personal struggles I have endured are much broader than just the farm and span over years, not just isolated episodes, the brief story I am sharing today of just one of my experiences with our mental health system in my belief highlights the very reason we are all gathered here today in this chamber. It could have been a cold winter’s night or a warm summer’s evening in western Victoria. To be honest, I am not really sure as my recollections of this time are quite blurry. I had checked myself in to the emergency department at the Ballarat Base Hospital. I had fed my dogs, leaving them at home, knowing my parents would find them in the morning if things should take a turn for the worse. I had driven the 45 minutes it takes to get to town by myself, checking myself in at emergency. After jumping straight to the front of the triage queue, I was taken out into one of those curtain-partitioned rooms amongst the mayhem of a standard emergency department you would find at any hospital. Here

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 661

I waited for a member of the psych services team to most likely get himself out of bed and make the trip into the hospital to come and see me. I was not unknown to psych services, as I had previously self-admitted during regular daytime hours. It was around midnight; it could have even been a little bit after. The man, whose name I do not remember, came in and talked to me for a while: the usual ‘How are you? What’s going on? Why are you feeling like this?’. He was caring, compassionate and took his job seriously. After talking to him for a while, it was decided it was time for me to leave, or something along those lines. He produced a piece of paper. I cannot remember if it was printed or what it was, but we both signed it, agreeing that I, Al Gabb, would not harm myself that evening. Yes, I had calmed down by this stage and was not feeling as bad as I was at first admission. So there I was, discharged with this piece of paper I had signed. Off I went, out into the dark in the early hours of the morning. I walked back to my car and drove myself home. I did not realise at the time what had just happened. I had been discharged alone, back onto the street in the dark early hours of the morning as a potentially suicidal person. This never really dawned on me until some time later—how the system in actual fact had let me down. But nonetheless I survived, and here I am today talking to you. I am one of the lucky ones. I was fortunate enough to have the fiscal means to seek private professional help. There are many that do not have such means. There are also many who do not survive and many that do not heal from their mental conditions. It is these people that really matter. They are the reason I stand before you today, with the anticipation of doing my little bit to improve the system. I am pretty sure everybody in this room can relate somehow personally. Through extended family or friends they will know someone who has struggled through mental illness or of a condition that has impacted somebody they know or love in a serious way. So let us all imagine something for a moment. How good would it be for a future patient to be able to walk into any of our healthcare facilities knowing that they would be walking into not only the best available care in the world but also a system where they would get the needed support that they require as an individual, allowing not only themselves but their friends and family the assurance that they will be cared for? So today I applaud you all, teams red, blue and green, for putting down your colours and having this joint sitting of Parliament. Political sway must be put aside on this issue, as you have all demonstrated today. This is one issue that politics must not be played with. This is one issue where bipartisanship must remain, showing the true character of this state and of the people running it. It is you, the members of Parliament here in this chamber today and those yet to be elected in the future, no matter their political ilk, who have the responsibility to make the change that is much needed. That is my message to you as an individual who feels truly humbled to stand here today giving you a brief account of my version of my dealings with the mental health system here in this state. Thank you. The SPEAKER: Thank you very much for those remarks, Mr Gabb. I now call on the Premier to address the house. Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (10:56): Thank you very much, Speaker. I too acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay my deep personal respects to their elders past and present. I would like to begin by sharing a reflection on our mental health system, words pulled from the pages of expert findings and informed by the stories of survivors. I quote:

It is clear from evidence presented in this report that the cost of mental illness in terms of human lives and suffering is enormous. … People affected by mental illness are clearly among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. They suffer from widespread, systematic discrimination and are consistently denied the rights and services to which they are entitled. … The effects of discrimination and stigmatisation are also felt by …

DOCUMENTS 662 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 their families.

Carers spoke passionately about … their struggle—to the point of exhaustion—to obtain professional advice and appropriate treatment. … and the stresses associated with providing that care are compounded by … an almost total lack of understanding, recognition or support … The cost of our current neglect is clearly documented in this report. It demands:

… an urgent, concerted and effective response. … As a community we cannot afford to continue to turn a blind eye … I quote not from the commission nor the report that we are here to table today. Instead these words are from the Burdekin report, Australia’s National Inquiry into the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness, handed down nearly 30 years ago. Three decades on, the system it describes—the deep cracks and closed doors—is frankly all too recognisable. That sense of isolation for individuals, despair for families, desperation for workers, and the profound cost and scale of suffering—all of it is achingly familiar. I chose to share these words today not to diminish the findings of that report or those who have worked so hard in the years since to address them but because it shows, three decades on, not enough has changed, and without real, concrete and committed action from government nothing ever will. The failings in our mental health system are often described as ‘cracks’—the cracks that emerge when people are told they are too sick or alternatively not sick enough, when they are told there is a waiting list or, more commonly, no waiting list exists at all; the cracks that mean people in our regions and in our suburbs are only ever offered care far from home and far from the people they love; the cracks that mean new mums, overwhelmed and exhausted, have no idea where to turn, that see older blokes bottling it up, keeping it in until it is too late, and that see parents and their children falling because there is nothing to hold on to. Eventually those cracks become a chasm, and far too many Victorians are falling to their death. Last year we lost 698 Victorians to suicide. That is 698 of us. Then there is a much bigger number: those who experience anxiety, depression, panic disorders, eating disorders—a continuum as complex and diverse as each of the individuals involved. And from there, an even wider net is cast: families, workplaces, schools—entire communities. As one submission from the interim report described, if you have one member of a five-person family who is suffering with a mental health condition, you have four more people who suffer alongside them. That was certainly the experience for Madeline’s family, close-knit and connected. Her good days and her bad days were felt equally by her family. I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting Madeline on a good day, way back in 2014. We were there to visit her school, Essendon Keilor College, to make an announcement about a new upgrade. As a year 7 student and as a member of the school’s junior leadership team, Madeline had been asked to speak to the throng of assembled journos. Bright, smart and articulate, she fielded their questions with the poise and confidence of a seasoned media performer. That meeting with Madeline stayed with me, so just a few weeks ago, when her mum emailed me to share what had happened, it literally floored me. I will not go into the details of Madeline’s death— how or when or perhaps most heartbreakingly, why—but as her mum told me, Madeline was a bright and shining star, a bright and shining star who deserved a bright and shining future. It is why today, tomorrow and in the days to come we should never forget the true cost of failure: daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, mums, dads, mates and best friends; people we know, people we love—and in getting this right at long last, getting this done, it is them we owe it to. We established this royal commission because we knew of the cracks in our system and we knew too many people were falling through them. Just over two years on, and as we table the commission’s final report, it is clearer than ever that our system is more than just cracked; it is completely broken. Instead, we need to build a new mental health system from the ground up, ensuring care for those who

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 663 need it where they need it and whenever they need it. There are some issues that take a long time to build and some reforms that develop an undeniable momentum, when it is clear that the time to act has come. That is what saw us establish this royal commission, and that is what will see us implement every single one of its recommendations. That is the action and the effort of government. But getting us to this point has been the collective purpose of thousands of Victorians. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the commissioners for their quite amazing work—to Penny, to Allan, Alex and Bernadette, and of course your staff. I also want to thank the expert advisory committee, chaired by Professor Pat McGorry. Collectively what you have achieved is nothing short of amazing. Never before has a document been delivered to government driven by such human experience. This is a report profoundly shaped by those who know our mental health system—they know it best: the people who have turned to it, the people who have worked in it, the people who have been failed by it. I want to thank each and every individual who shared their experience: survivors, families, workers, advocates and experts. Your courage, your commitment, has laid the foundation for this once-in-a- generation reform. To each of you—to all of you—thank you. Over the course of this commission it has become clear that, for many Victorians, talking about mental health continues to carry with it a burden of pain and stigma and shame. But the truth is that shame does not belong to them. Instead that shame should be shouldered by a generation of policymakers—those who saw the problem but failed to rise to the challenge. That includes our government, my government. Today we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity, an opportunity to reach across the divide and set right those many wrongs, to rebuild our mental health system from the ground up, and reform. Of course it will not be simple, it will not be fast and it will not be easy; important work never is. But as I stand here today I am certain that that work will save lives and change lives, and there is not a moment to wait. This is the time to get this done. The SPEAKER: Thank you, Premier. I now call the Leader of the Opposition. Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (11:06): I begin by acknowledging and paying my respects to the traditional owners of the lands on which we meet. Speaker, parliamentary colleagues, royal commissioners, and in particular those members of the community, whether with us today or watching online, who have lived experience of Victoria’s mental health system and have been a voice for such desperately needed change, I am honoured to address you today on the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System.

He who has health, has hope; and he who has hope, has everything. This ancient Arabian proverb sums up the vital importance of health in our lives. Health, especially mental health, begets hope, and hope keeps us alive. Hope is what enables us to endure hardship and pain. Hope is what encourages us to hold out for better days. But poor mental health is the thief of hope, and without hope we are nothing. That is why every single Victorian has a personal interest in this royal commission’s report into our mental health system, because every Victorian has suffered or will suffer from poor mental health during their lives, or cares deeply about somebody who will. I wish to acknowledge the personal efforts of our royal commissioners over the past two years that have guided this final report tabled today, namely, Penny Armytage, Professor Allan Fels, Dr Alex Cockram and Professor Bernadette McSherry. I also acknowledge the important contribution of the expert advisory committee chaired by Professor Pat McGorry and the tremendous work of the royal commission staff. The commission’s terms of reference required it to report on how Victoria’s mental health system can most effectively prevent mental illness and deliver treatment, care and support so that all those in the Victorian community can experience their best mental health now and into the future. While the commission focused on system-wide issues rather than individual cases, some of the most powerful evidence came from ordinary Victorians who showed extraordinary courage in stepping forward to tell their own story, to speak up for those we have lost, to be a voice for those who were failed by a

DOCUMENTS 664 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 broken system. As a Victorian I stand here grateful to each and every one of you for your bravery, but as a member of Parliament I stand here embarrassed that so many of you have been let down so badly by a system that we collectively built to keep you safe, and it did not. We have known for a long time that Victoria’s mental health system has many problems, and the evidence presented before the royal commission highlights just how fundamentally broken the system is. It is a system that is chronically underfunded. It is a system reactive to crisis. It is a system that not only fails to fix the fence at the top of the proverbial cliff; it too often fails to provide the ambulance at the bottom of it. As the royal commission itself previously noted:

There was a period when Victoria was considered a leader in mental health services. That time has passed. This should be a cause for shame. Can a state which overspends billions and billions of dollars on projects be unable or unwilling to fund an adequate mental health system? I do not believe that is who we are as Victorians. I know we are better than that. So this royal commission report must be the start of fundamental change, meaningful change—not just press releases, real change on the ground, with more services, more choice, more accessibility and more respect for individuals. It has been too long coming. While this royal commission was welcomed across the community, it has also delayed addressing some obvious flaws in the system. Since 2014 the number of emergency patients admitted to a mental health bed within 8 hours has fallen from 71 per cent to just 54 per cent. This means more than 6000 Victorians last year had to wait more than 8 hours for a mental health bed. The availability of beds in specialised mental health units and the availability of community-based residential units has also been falling. Even when people can get access to Victoria’s mental health system, too often it does not provide the support or treatment needed. I praise the courage of Amelia and Al for sharing their personal stories with us, which exemplifies just how broken the system has been. Almost one in four Victorians admitted to hospital for mental health reasons under the age of 18 is readmitted within 28 days of discharge. Behind each of these statistics are real people—people who need our help and people the system let down. If Victoria’s mental health system was failing before the COVID-19 pandemic, it has now been very much exposed. The stress and strain on the mental health of Victorians caused by the pandemic and measures to combat it have been horrific. Lockdowns forced people to separate from family and friends and cut off vital support networks. They forced businesses to close. Jobs went. They required parents to have the additional stress of supervising home learning while trying to work at the same time. We know that family violence increased, as did drug, alcohol and other substance abuse. We know there was a sharp increase in the presentation of young people with suicidal ideation to hospital emergency departments. Many Victorians reached out to me to share their anguish. One woman, Louise, wrote to me:

PLEASE DO SOMETHING … she said.

Today I am supporting a girlfriend who’s husband took his own life due to money problems thanks to the extended lockdown. This is the 2nd suicide of a close friend of ours in a month. Previous to covid I didn’t know 1 person who had taken their life. This is out of control … Another woman wrote:

At the beginning of this year I was a nurse who through this COVID process nursed the dying in aged care without their families present … By June after 20 years of nursing, I could take no more … I’ve spent 100 days without a hug from my adult children and 2 precious grandchild …. I’ve watched and waited for a glimmer of hope I have plummeted to a depressive place I never thought was possible … These cries for help must no longer go unanswered.

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 665

The work of this royal commission cannot undo the mistakes of the past. It cannot undo the pain caused to vulnerable people at their lowest ebb by a mental health system that was simply not up to the task. It cannot bring back the lives of those we have lost because the system let them down. But this final report must mark a fundamental change in direction, and there can be no turning back. Today I believe the government, and indeed this Parliament, must admit its mistakes, apologise to Victorians for the failures of the past and act quickly and decisively to implement the important changes Victorians need to address mental health issues across our community. Mental health care is an essential service of government and must be prioritised as such. I do not believe that funding mental health should be stigmatised by a special levy or a new tax. It is a core responsibility of government and should be resourced as such, just as schools and police are. To all those who have contributed to this final report, on behalf of the parliamentary Liberals and Nationals I thank you. This is not the end though. It is just the beginning of what must be a fundamentally different and better way of recognising, treating, supporting and respecting those Victorians with mental health challenges. Listening to your voices has never been more important, and I have heard you. More choice, more options, more respect, more support: that is my commitment to you, and Victorians deserve nothing less. The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments. I now call the Minister for Mental Health. Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (11:16): I would also like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge our special guests—survivors, families, advocates and experts: our commissioners, Penny Armytage, Professor Allan Fels, Dr Alex Cockram and Professor Bernadette McSherry; members of the expert advisory committee chaired by Professor Patrick McGorry; Al Gabb and Amelia Morris—thank you for your courage; and members of Parliament from both chambers and across the political divide. I would like to take this opportunity to particularly acknowledge Martin Foley. Martin served our state as Minister for Mental Health for six years, and it is his work and the work of his team that forms the foundation of why we are here today. This process began just over 2½ years ago in a humble men’s shed just outside of Kyneton. That day the Premier and our government confirmed our commitment to this nation’s first ever royal commission into mental health. Today, in a not-so-humble shed, we receive its final report. In so many ways those two-and-a-bit years have felt like a lifetime—the last year in particular. But this was not a journey that started in that shed. It did not start with a speech or a stroke of a pen or a vote in Parliament. It began because of the individuals, many of whom are here today, who demanded better: the Victorians living with mental illness who told us of a system so full of cracks it felt like the odds were deliberately stacked against them; the families left heartbroken who bravely, so bravely, shared stories of a system that had failed them and the people they loved; and the Victorian mental health workforce, life-savers in every sense of the word, men and women who do some of the toughest work there is, day in and day out, who came to us and described what was broken and what needed to be fixed. This report is not a repudiation of all of their hard work. It is instead a recognition that they have struggled and strived all this time to provide care to people in a system that worked against them. So this report is a new chapter for them as well. Survivors, families, workers, experts, advocates—Victorians who demanded better: this royal commission happened because of you. We are rebuilding our mental health system because you believed we could do better and demanded that we did. And because of you, what we started in that shed 28 months ago encompasses the voice of thousands of Victorians—the biggest royal commission in Victoria’s history—more than 12 000 contributions, 3200 submissions and over 3000 pages of evidence. For too long mental health had been something we talked about with hushed voices, behind closed doors, and we would let the stigma stop us from having the conversation we needed. The royal commission started that conversation, opened that door, and Victorians were ready and courageous

DOCUMENTS 666 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 enough to share their stories. That is testament to each and every witness, every panel member, everyone who took part. As we begin the process of rebuilding our system it is those Victorians who must continue to be at the heart of our work—not politics, not just doing what is easy, but doing what is right. That is why we will implement every recommendation in the report—every single one. As the commissioners tell us, our system creates a massive missing middle—a vast gulf that means people are told they are not sick enough for help or are too sick to be treated outside hospital. The reforms we are about to embark on will bring the system out of hospital wards and into communities. We will ensure Victorians get the help they need close to home, close to their support network and before it becomes a crisis. We will provide dedicated support for our young people, giving families and schools and communities the resources to identify issues early and potentially change the course of a young person’s whole life. It is a big job and it is going to take time and hard work and commitment, but we must never lose sight of what it will mean, never lose sight of why we started this or who we started it for. For me there is a very personal reason. Six years ago almost to this day we lost my cousin Sam. He was a father of two girls, he was a rascal and he was more than a handy footballer. He did not make the cut, but he ran around with Hawthorn back in the day—and growing up, for this younger cousin, that was pretty good. Sam’s death devastated us. It left us with deep sadness and raw anger and so many unanswerable questions. What if we had said something? What if we had seen the signs? What if? That ache never goes away. I know today will not bring back Sam and it will not bring back the loved ones of so many people in this room, but knowing that we can spare families that heartache, knowing we can change lives, knowing that we will save lives—there is nothing more worthy than that. Thank you. The SPEAKER: I thank the Minister for Mental Health for those remarks, and I now call on the Shadow Minister for Mental Health, the member for Lowan. Ms KEALY (Lowan) (11:23): I firstly acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, those past and present and particularly those who may be amongst us today. Royal commissioners, executive committee members, fellow parliamentarians and, most importantly, you, Victorians that have shared their experience, their heartache and trauma, their trust and experience of broken trust, their trauma and their candid stories of when they were at their most vulnerable and in the lowest moment of their lives: welcome and thank you for being part of today’s tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. For many, attending this event today is extremely confronting because it is a reminder of some of the hardest days of your life. Thank you very much to Amelia and Al for sharing your personal journeys and the frustrations and the let-down that you had through dealing with Victoria’s public mental health system. It might be that day that your partner dragged you to a GP that you had never seen before because your depression and anxiety had become so entrenched that you could not function, only to be told that there were no mental health services available and be offered medication instead of care. It could be a reminder of the hours or even days waiting in an emergency department with your child or even your parent while waiting for a psychiatric bed and being with them and supporting them while they had a psychotic episode in the emergency department or even in a hospital corridor and just being terrified for their safety and the safety of the people around them. It could be when you yourself were a teenager in acute crisis and were begging to be taken in by Headspace, because it was the only youth mental health service available, only to be told that your case was too complex for them and that they could not deal with you, and you had nowhere else to go. It could be the day you found out your son had been discharged from psychiatric care but you had not been informed as their primary carer, only to be told later by police that his body had been found. It could be a reminder of the day when you lost all hope yourself, but thankfully you were found in time. These are all true stories that have been brought to me personally in the last couple of years, and there are many, many more that I could share. You will have your own story, and it is no less important. To each of you, I am so sorry Victoria’s public mental

DOCUMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 667 health system was not there for you when you needed it, that it made you feel like you were not worth saving, supporting or helping. I am so, so very sorry. I am also sorry that while we have waited years for government action to fix the known problems and gaping chasms in mental health, some of you were needlessly harmed and traumatised. There are also people who simply cannot be here today to see this report because they are in prison, homeless, in the grasp of drug and alcohol addiction or no longer with us, because their government took too long to act. This is unacceptable, because for too long mental health has been offered nothing more than lip- service rather than being seen as the core provision of government services that it should be—that it must be. In my seven years as a parliamentarian there have been a plethora of government reports and inquiries into mental health, which have offered hundreds of recommendations to fix a mental health system in crisis. Many of the 65 recommendations in the royal commission’s final report are hauntingly familiar and have been raised many times before. It has been obvious for some time where the shortfalls in the system are, but government has failed to act. Since 2018 the reason for this failure to act has ironically been that the government was waiting for the royal commission’s final report. This in itself has caused immense harm and trauma in our community and delayed any improvement to Victoria’s mental health system for years. So now the government has the final report, and while this is too late for some who have been harmed while waiting for action, there are now no more excuses for the government to continue to fail to act and neglect this core component of health care in Victoria. I thank the commissioners led by Penny, the committee led by Pat and the thousands of contributors to this report. I share your vision of a mental health system that provides quality care that meets individual needs, that supports consumers’ choice and the consumer’s voice, that is accessible for all Victorians no matter where they live, that is based on stepped care to support wellness rather than intervention during crisis, that is built upon world-leading research in mental health models of care and that, importantly, has strong governance, transparency in reporting and true accountability to the public and to the people who need to use Victoria’s public mental health system. This may be the final report, but it is not the final word. Please do not stop speaking up, because it is not the fanfare, the photo opportunities or media releases of today and coming weeks and months that will measure the success of the royal commission. The true measure of success or failure will be when your experience in Victoria’s mental health system meets your needs and expectations, that you feel safe and worthy of care, that you receive care when you need it and where you need it and that you are empowered to manage your own mental health. Finally your voice has been heard. We are listening. It is now time for government to act. The SPEAKER: I thank the shadow minister for her comments. Just before closing today’s special sitting and just to depart from the script a little bit, I want to thank in particular Amelia and Alistair for sharing their stories. It takes a lot of guts to get up on stage in front of a lot of people, so thank you very much. I also want to briefly thank the staff from both Parliament and the Department of Premier and Cabinet and Victoria Police for making today happen. I invite everybody to join us for tea and coffee over to my right. The house is now suspended for 3 hours. We will reconvene in the chamber at Parliament House. Thank you. Sitting suspended 11.31 am until 2.31 pm.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 668 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Business of the house STANDING AND SESSIONAL ORDERS Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (14:31): I move, by leave:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the following arrangements to come into effect immediately and to remain in place until 5 March 2021: Order of business (1) The order of business is: Wednesday Formal business Statements by members Statements on parliamentary committee reports Government business Question time—11.00 am Government business continued Lunch break and cleaning in the Chamber—1.00 pm to 2.00 pm Matter of public importance or grievance debate—2.00 pm Government business continued General business Thursday Formal business Statements by members Government business Question time—11.00 am Government business continued Lunch break and cleaning in the Chamber—1.00 pm to 2.00 pm Government business continued General business. (2) The Speaker may order additional breaks to facilitate cleaning in the Chamber. Times of meeting (3) Unless otherwise ordered, the House will meet on Wednesday at 9.30 am and Thursday at 9.30 am. (4) The Speaker will interrupt business under Sessional Order 2 for the adjournment on Tuesday at 8.00 pm, on Wednesday at 7.00 pm and on Thursday at 5.00 pm. Reduced number of members in the Chamber to assist with physical distancing (5) Subject to paragraphs (9) and (10), the House will be composed of the Chair and no more than 56 other members, being 34 from the Government, 17 from the Opposition, two Greens members and three independent members. (6) Except as provided for in paragraphs (9) and (10), if more members than those listed in paragraph (5) vote in a division, the Clerk will not count their vote. Quorum (7) The House gives the Chair further discretion in ringing the bells to form a quorum under SO 29, provided the Chair is confident that a quorum is present within the parliamentary precinct. (8) If, under paragraph (7) and SO 29(1), the bells are rung to form a quorum, the provisions under paragraph (5) are suspended until a quorum is formed. Divisions

MEMBERS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 669

(9) For questions relating to the passage of bills on the government business program, the provisions of paragraph (5) are suspended and divisions will take place as follows: (a) the Chair will direct that the lower and upper public galleries be cleared; (b) the lower and upper public galleries are included as part of the Legislative Assembly Chamber until the conclusion of the consideration of all items on the government business program; (c) the House will be composed of all members; (d) the Chair and up to 56 members may attend on the floor, up to 15 members may attend in the lower public galleries and up to 16 members may attend in the upper public gallery; (e) the Chair will direct the Clerk to ring the bells for four minutes for the first division and one minute for any subsequent divisions; (f) the Chair will direct that the doors, including the doors to the public galleries, be locked and state the question being voted on; (g) the Chair will ask members who are voting ‘aye’ to stand in their place and, in turn, will ask members who are voting ‘no’ to stand in their place; (h) the Clerk will count the votes; and (i) the Chair will announce the result to the House. Bills requiring an absolute or special majority on third reading (10) Where the Chair advises the House that the third reading of a bill requires an absolute or special majority (or both) under the Constitution Act 1975, the following procedure will apply: (a) the Chair will direct that the lower and upper public galleries be cleared; (b) the lower and upper public galleries are included as part of the Legislative Assembly Chamber until the conclusion of the House’s consideration of the bill; (c) the provisions of paragraph (5) are suspended and the House will be composed of all members; (d) the Chair and up to 56 members may attend on the floor, up to 15 members may attend in the lower public galleries and up to 16 members may attend in the upper public gallery; (e) the Chair will ask the Clerk to ring the bells until at least 45 members (if the bill requires an absolute majority) or 53 members (if the bill requires a special majority) are present in the Chamber; (f) the Chair will put the third reading question; (g) if there are voices for the ‘noes’ and a division is called— (i) the division will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (9); and (ii) after announcing the number of votes cast for the ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’ the Chair will declare whether the third reading has passed by an absolute and/or special majority of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Assembly; (h) if there are no voices for the ‘noes’, the Chair will declare the third reading passed by an absolute and/or special majority of the whole number of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Motion agreed to. Members MINISTER FOR WATER Absence Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:31): I wish to advise the house that while the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is absent the Assistant Treasurer will be responsible for the police and emergency services portfolio and the Minister for Planning will be responsible for the water portfolio.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 670 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Questions without notice and ministers statements MINISTERIAL CONDUCT Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:32): My question is to the Premier. Last week in question time I asked the Premier how many times he had met with any member of the Fox family over the past six months. In the Age of 27 February a Labor source confirmed:

They spend a lot of time in one another’s company talking … and coming up with ideas that can bring their collective interests to bear. I ask again: how many times in the past six months has the Premier met with Lindsay Fox or any member of the Fox family at either their Portsea compound or any of their Melbourne residences? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:33): I thank the member for Ripon for her question. Today we just have received, we have just had given to us and all Victorians, a profoundly important royal commission report that will change lives and save lives, and we get a re-run—not just a re-run of what they asked last week but a re-run of what was in the Age. Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, on relevance. The SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to come back to answering the question. Mr ANDREWS: I meet with many, many people—many people—about many different issues. Others perhaps do not get to meet with as many people on as many issues because no-one wants to meet with them—although there seem to be plenty of meetings going on at the moment. Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the question did not go to the many people that the Premier meets or how many times he may have met them; the question went to the one person and how often the Premier had met that person or his family. The SPEAKER: The Premier is being relevant to the question that has been asked. Mr ANDREWS: That was not the question at all. The question was much broader than that. It was based on an unnamed source, so thanks for that point of order. You have clarified no end—you have helped no end there. I behave appropriately at all times and in all things. That is the oath that I swore. If the conspiracy theorist opposite wants to make a claim or an allegation, go right ahead and do it. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:35): Given the extent of his personal relationship with the Fox family, will the Premier recuse himself from any cabinet deliberations regarding the commercial interests of Linfox, including a quarantine facility? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:35): The Leader of the Opposition did not ask this question because they are all about to recuse him from everything—that is about recusal! Ms Staley: On a point of order, Speaker, you have previously ruled on many occasions that question time is not an opportunity for the government to attack the opposition. I ask you to ask the Premier to answer a very simple and relevant question. The SPEAKER: I do uphold the point of order. Mr ANDREWS: I could not agree more. I think attacks on the Leader of the Opposition are absolutely out of order. He is doing a great job, and long may he stay in that role. I tell the questioner one thing—I do not know whether she has been in the cabinet room, I am not sure—all deliberations by all ministers are done in accordance with the highest standards— Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Laugh all you want. We will see if you are laughing in May, shall we? That is the time line you are on apparently. We will not be lectured to by this lot about probity and the

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 671 administration of good government. We will not be lectured by the likes of you when it comes to these matters. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:36): Today at the exhibition building in a unique arrangement all of us came together to receive a historic royal commission report. I say it is historic because it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—an obligation, in fact—for us to do more and do better to save lives, to change lives, to provide for every single Victorian the fundamental human right of health care when they need it as close to home as possible. There is no health without mental health. This is something we have known for the longest of times. Today in my remarks I took the opportunity to assume responsibility on behalf of all governments in the history of our state that have not done as they should—my government, our government, included. I made a commitment as part of the election campaign in 2018 that we would have a royal commission. Victorians voted for that plan. It had many different elements. We have had the royal commission. An interim report was provided. The final report was provided today, and we will implement every single one of the recommendations that have been handed to us. Now is the moment. The question of course will be: are we equal to that challenge, are we equal to this moment? More beds, better services, a redesign of the entire system because there is no system at the moment—there are disparate, disconnected services that fail too many people too often. The key point here is to not be distracted by those who would play games but instead to get on and make these changes. Whether we have the support of others or not, we will get this job done. I thank Penny Armytage. I thank all of her team, her fellow royal commissioners and her staff. But most of all I thank Amelia and Al and every other person with lived experience who through their courage have shown us what we must do—and we will do it. MINISTERIAL CONDUCT Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:38): My question is to the Premier. All members of Parliament are required to notify the Clerk of any gifts over $500 in their declaration of interests, and under the Premier’s own ministerial code of conduct, ministers are required to be conscious of actual or potential conflicts of interest. Has the Premier accepted one or more helicopter flights from the Fox family? Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:39): Never. Zero. The only helicopter flights I have been on have been when, in my capacity as the Premier of this state— Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: Okay, if you want to listen, it was during bushfires. To the best of my knowledge they are the only helicopters I have ever been on. So the answer is no. Not one, not more than one— the answer is zero. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Just before the member for Ripon asks her supplementary, members on both sides are having turns at shouting across the chamber. They will be removed without warning. Ms STALEY (Ripon) (14:40): On 16 February, in the middle of Melbourne’s third lockdown, iconic cafe Hardware Société closed down. The owner said:

Today our sales were $391.00, that’s … $10,000 less than an ordinary Monday. Why shouldn’t Victorians be outraged that the Premier is cracking $10 000 bottles of wine with the Fox family while Victorian businesses lose $10 000 a day?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 672 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (14:41): I am not entirely sure that that question has got much to do with the helicopter pilot. Like, you know— Members interjecting. Mr ANDREWS: And here I was, thinking that the member for Ripon might have been the plan B. She has not got a plan B clearly. Anyway, I do not know what connection that had to the first question. What I would say to the member for Ripon and all those opposite is: if you have got allegations to make, make them. That is the first point. Secondly, this government handed down a budget late last year. There will be another one in May, and do you know what will be the theme of that? More jobs, more investment, prosperity and repairing the damage that this global pandemic has done to us, and that is what we will always focus on. Today, though, I would have thought the focus could be and ought to be on those thousands of Victorians who came forward and told their stories and have shown us the way to build a better mental health system. Apparently others are not interested in this. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (14:42): I rise to update the house on the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. What we have tabled today is a landmark report reflecting over two years of hard work by four committed commissioners listening to many thousands of Victorians. It sets out a blueprint for us to rebuild from the ground up our mental health system, providing the treatment and care that all Victorians deserve where they need it and whenever they need it. Perhaps most importantly it centres voices of lived experience and places the dignity of the individual at the heart of everything that we do. There was another similarly monumental shift that occurred long ago, and it was the movement to deinstitutionalise mental health in the 1990s. There are many alive today who remember that moment in time and remember the commitments made to improve the lives of people living in the community with mental illness. I am sorry to say that promise—the promise of that commitment—was never realised, until today. Then there are our kids. We owe a duty to all children and young people to provide them with the best possible start in life. Again when it comes to mental health, we have been letting down children and young people for years. We heard so powerfully from Amelia today about how as a teenager the system completely let her down. The report has recommended the establishment of 13 infant, child and youth area mental health services. It recommends we fund evidence-informed initiatives in schools to support better mental health and wellbeing. It recommends that a dedicated youth prevention and recovery centre be established in each region. The mental health system that we will rebuild will save lives and change lives because we will deliver on each and every one of the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission and the interim report. And I say to the member for Lowan and I say to everyone opposite: will you support every single recommendation of the royal commission? MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Mental Health. The AMA’s Sarah Whitelaw said last week that distressed mental health patients were spending days in unfamiliar hospital emergency departments where staff had no idea of their mental health history. Ms Whitelaw also said, and I quote:

The mental health system is already shattered. This is just grinding those pieces into dust in the ground Given this damning assessment, why didn’t the government take pre-emptive action before the release of today’s report?

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 673

Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (14:45): I thank the member for Lowan for her question. We did—we did—and secondly, the whole reason for the establishment of the royal commission and the commitment to deliver on every single recommendation of the final report and the interim report was because the system was broken, and it did not need fixing—it needed a complete rebuild. Now, let me just give you a history lesson. Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, the minister has gone to the royal commission alone. But this question is not about anything that has been announced today or may happen in the future; this is about people who are waiting days in an emergency department, which is the most dangerous place for someone going through a psychotic episode to be. Why didn’t the government do something about this? Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Ms Kealy: Why— The SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume her seat for a moment. It is hard to hear the member’s point of order with members on both sides shouting. I ask the member for Lowan to come to making a point of order. Ms Kealy: I ask you to bring the minister back to the question that was asked, which was: why are people waiting days in emergency departments? Why haven’t they done anything in the lead-up to that to fix a system that has now been ground into dust? The SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is not an opportunity to repeat the question. The minister is being relevant to the question that has been asked. Mr MERLINO: Thanks, Speaker. To the history lesson: since 2014, under the leadership of the former Minister for Health, a 75 per cent increase in funding for mental health. In our last budget— Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: In our last budget in November, the first budget opportunity after the delivery of the interim report of the royal commission, $869 million was invested in mental health, the biggest investment in mental health in the history of this state, delivering in full— Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: delivering in full the recommendations of the interim report. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lowan has asked a question. I ask the member not to shout across the table at the minister when he is answering the question, as well as other members in the chamber. This is an important topic, I think we would all agree. We need to be able to hear the minister’s answer to this question without him being shouted down. Mr MERLINO: A 75 per cent increase in funding since 2014. The last budget in November, the first budget after the interim report, delivers in full on the recommendations on the beds that were recommended in the interim report. In fact it goes beyond the recommendations. If you look at the interim report, it talks about 170; we have funded in full 179. The interim report of the royal commission recommended that we roll out statewide the hospital outreach post-suicidal after engagement services. This is about providing support for individuals and families after a suicide attempt. I was in Shepparton late last year opening the HOPE service in Shepparton. We are rolling them out across the state and will deliver that by the end of the year. We have invested in mental health. Every single budget of the Andrews government— Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: We made an election commitment.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 674 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Polwarth can leave the chamber for a period of 1 hour. Member for Polwarth withdrew from chamber. Mr MERLINO: We made an election commitment in 2018 to have the nation’s first-ever royal commission into mental health. We said at the time we would accept every single recommendation. The disrespect of those opposite, of the member for Lowan in getting up and asking a question about mental health when they are on their feet saying they will not accept the recommendations. That is what they are saying. Members interjecting. Mr MERLINO: They will not accept the recommendations. How dare you get up and ask a question about mental health! Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Deputy Premier is being offensive, misleading the house and disgracefully trying to politicise mental health, the last refuge of the scoundrel. Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Regional Development can leave the chamber for a period of 1 hour. Minister for Regional Development withdrew from chamber. The SPEAKER: I remind members that question time is not an opportunity to attack the opposition, and members should refer to other members by their correct titles. Mr MERLINO: Speaker, out of the mouth of the temporary Leader of the Opposition, he has said he will not accept a recommendation of the royal commission. Members interjecting. Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Deputy Premier could comply with the forms of the house and refer to people by their appropriate titles instead of making grubby political attacks. The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has concluded his answer. Ms KEALY (Lowan) (14:50): The interim findings from the royal commission into mental health were released in November 2019, with many of them immediately actionable. How many mental health related deaths could have been prevented had the minister not delayed the implementation of these recommendations? Mr MERLINO (Monbulk—Minister for Education, Minister for Mental Health) (14:50): I thank the member for Lowan for her question. There was no delay. The first opportunity in a budget sense for this government to respond to the interim report of the royal commission was the budget last year. We delivered $869 million; $578 million of that was directly linked to the recommendations of the royal commission— Members interjecting. The SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party can leave the chamber for the period of 1 hour. Member for Eildon withdrew from the chamber. Mr MERLINO: We have not wasted a moment, whether it was from the day we entered this chamber on this side of the house—75 per cent increase in funding over the course of the budgets since 2014—to the interim report and the budget last year. We will respond in a budget sense in this

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 675 coming budget in May, and I look forward to the member for Lowan supporting the budget and supporting every single recommendation. Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Speaker, I refer back to my question, which was around the impacts of failure to act. It is not about the money; it is actually about the people whose lives are being impacted— The SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The minister has concluded his answer. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Ms WILLIAMS (Dandenong—Minister for Prevention of Family Violence, Minister for Women, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (14:52): As we all heard this morning, for too long Victoria’s mental health system has failed Victorians and particularly Aboriginal Victorians. Intergenerational trauma from colonisation, dispossession and ongoing discrimination has meant that Aboriginal people experience poorer mental health than non-Aboriginal Victorians. Aboriginal Victorians are 2½ times more likely to experience psychological distress. They are four times more likely to present to an emergency department with an acute mental health concern and twice as likely to die by suicide. That is an indictment of the systemic racism that pervades our society and sadly also our service systems. This is an uncomfortable truth, but a truth nonetheless. With the handing down of the royal commission’s report, today we say ‘no more’. This royal commission lays out a plan to rebuild our mental health system from the ground up, ensuring that care is culturally safe and self-determining for Aboriginal Victorians. It recommends new co-designed healing centres and resourcing for Aboriginal health organisations to provide primary, secondary and also shared care. That means Aboriginal health professionals providing clinical services to Aboriginal people, just as it should be. The royal commission also recommends a new, culturally appropriate family-oriented service for infants and children. It focuses on healing and connection to culture and country as central to that process. And because nearly one-third of Aboriginal Victorians have experienced racism in a health setting, these reforms will embed culturally appropriate practices in mainstream services so that they can rebuild trust with community. I am proud that our government has committed to implementing each one of these recommendations in full—each and every one—because we will only achieve a fair and equal society once injustices committed against Aboriginal people are publicly acknowledged and systemically remedied, and that is exactly what the royal commission calls on us to do. GAS IMPORTS Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (14:54): My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Minister, whilst last sitting week this house supported the ban on gas fracking in Victoria’s constitution, there are still currently plans for two gas import terminals in Victoria—in Western Port and Geelong. Can the minister guarantee that no fracked gas will be shipped into Victoria through these gas import terminals? Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:55): I thank the member for Prahran for his question. The last time I checked, every molecule of gas does not have an ID so that you can actually identify its state of origin. But let me be clear here that when it comes to the proposed input terminal facilities that have been mentioned by the member for Prahran, certainly we are well aware that those two are matters that are subject to environment effects statements (EES), and they are matters that are currently before the appropriate planning processes. That is the answer to the question. Certainly that process will be an appropriate one where all stakeholders can be engaged in that, and there will be an absolute opportunity for everyone to have an input.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 676 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (14:55): Thank you, Minister. From what I can deduce from that answer, clearly the government acknowledges that fracking is devastating for the environment and terrible for our climate, and surely the government is aware that the gas imported will actually be gas fracked from sensitive ecosystems in the Northern Territory and farmland in Queensland. So can I deduce from the response from the minister that there will be no guarantee that the gas coming into Victoria will not actually be fracked gas? Ms D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park—Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Minister for Solar Homes) (14:56): Can I thank the member for Prahran for the supplementary question. No such conclusion can be drawn or deduced at all. These are matters that are subject to appropriate EES processes. They will go through the appropriate planning processes, and that is all that can be said on those two matters. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (14:56): I rise today as the Minister for Equality to make sure that the LGBTIQ community of Victoria are recognised as they have been in today’s groundbreaking first royal commission into our mental health system. The report handed down today by the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System charts not just the way forward for a consumer-driven, community-driven and I would like to think supported-by-all-levels-of-government-driven outcome to improve our mental health system generally, but particularly how to make it responsive and integrated and to have care of people at its heart. One group of Victorians that is over-represented in so many of the negative outcomes of our mental health system is our LGBTIQ community. That community, like many other vulnerable and at-risk communities, has poorer outcomes than the mainstream community when it comes to so many measures of mental health and wellbeing. That is why I was so pleased to see that the royal commission report today particularly recognises the diverse needs of our LGBTIQ community and makes sure not just that their voice will be at the heart of a wider mental health system of reform, but that the particular needs of the lived experience of our LGBTIQ community is at the heart of that, not just in metropolitan Melbourne but particularly right across our regions. I want to thank all those LGBTIQ community members who were involved in the representation of that community. I want to particularly thank the commissioner for LGBTIQ communities, Ro Allen, for their advocacy and their community support and the whole-of-government task group that this government has set up, particularly the health and human services group, for their advocacy. Their voice will be heard. This will be enduring reform. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO CROWN MELBOURNE Ms RYAN (Euroa) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. Why did the government exclude the Victorian commissioner for gambling and liquor regulation and Victoria Police from the terms of reference for the royal commission into Crown Casino? Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (14:59): In relation to the question asked by the member for Euroa, the royal commissioner can actually call whoever he wants to the royal commission, so I think that answers the question. Ms RYAN (Euroa) (14:59): How can Victorians have any confidence that this inquiry will get to the bottom of the government’s cosy relationship with Crown Casino when it has banned the royal commission from looking at the casino regulator and Victoria Police?

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 677

Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (15:00): As I said, there are terms of reference that have been set into the suitability of Crown to hold the licence. They are the terms of reference for the royal commission. In terms of how the royal commissioner conducts the royal commission, that is a matter for him. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: MENTAL HEALTH REFORM Mr ANDREWS (Mulgrave—Premier) (15:00): I am delighted to rise to update the house on what I think will be a very important partnership between our government here in Victoria and the Morrison federal government. Unlike others, I think there is a recognition in the federal government that this is the moment for bipartisanship. This is the moment to treat both the Productivity Commission report— a fantastic document, a very high-quality piece of work—and the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System final report as documents of equal standing. That is the commitment that the Prime Minister has given me. That was the discussion and the agreement that occurred amongst all first ministers at a meeting in Canberra towards the end of last year, and indeed mental health ministers and no doubt health ministers as well. There is an opportunity here, and I think it is unique, to acknowledge failure, to do more and to do better and to not have artificial divisions between one party and another, one government and another. Every Victorian is entitled to have an Australian government that is on their side as well, and that is exactly what I think we will be able to do. Using the unique position of the federal government through their primary care networks—through both GP-funded services, bulk-billed and otherwise, as well as other primary and community care platforms—I think there is an opportunity for us. In particular can I say the importance of this will be at its peak the further away from Melbourne we are. When we are into regional Victoria I think there will be an enormous opportunity to get more services at a local level, so early and local as opposed to late and in hospital. That is the story of this royal commission. The Prime Minister, I know because I have had numerous discussions with him, is passionate about preventing suicide, is passionate about a reform agenda nationally. Victoria and the commonwealth will be a best practice model, a partnership that others can emulate. The Prime Minister and I, like all Victorians except a few, are going to get this done. Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, I just want to raise some questions on notice that have not yet been answered, numbers 5302, 5301, 5300, 5299, 5298, 5297, 5296, 5295, 5294, 5293, 5292, 5291, 5290— The SPEAKER: Do I need to interrupt, member for Warrandyte? Dare I ask how many questions you have? Mr R Smith: We only have about 40 this time, Speaker. I am happy to table them and pass them on to the clerks, but I note that the large majority of them are for the Minister for Resources in the other place. As these ones have been waiting for an answer for some months now, perhaps you could give her a bit of a push along. There are also two constituency questions: one to the Attorney-General—same person, what a shock—and one to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Perhaps he could also get his act into gear and pass on an answer for the benefit of my constituents. The SPEAKER: I will follow those matters up for the member. Constituency questions ROWVILLE ELECTORATE Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:03): (5651) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Minister, why does AusNet not have the capacity to install solar panels for my constituent? A constituent of mine has had his application for solar panel installation declined by

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 678 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

AusNet, stating, and I quote, that they ‘do not have the capacity for the export’. With the current rebate system ending in June 2021, my constituent is wanting to install solar panels now. It does not make any sense that his application has been rejected. Why would this government encourage individuals to install solar panels if they do not have the capacity to do so? It is unfair to constituents in my electorate of Rowville that are missing out. My constituents deserve the same rebate as others. BOX HILL ELECTORATE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (15:04): (5652) My question is for the Minister for Roads and Road Safety. Minister, what is being done to address pedestrian safety concerns raised by parents at Blackburn Primary School regarding the intersection of Whitehorse Road and Maple Street in Blackburn? Serious concerns have been raised about westbound traffic using the U-turn facility in the centre median of Whitehorse Road to perform a dogleg right-hand turn into Maple Street. This intersection is just 50 metres from Blackburn Primary School and is a route used by many families on their daily walk to school. Residents are concerned that many vehicles cut the corner when making this turn, creating a potential conflict with pedestrians, many of whom are children. Locals have suggested that safety would be improved through the installation of some form of pedestrian barrier. I note that such an intervention would be consistent with a 2020 VicRoads road design note, which advised that pedestrian fencing is particularly useful at ‘Sites with high volume of vulnerable pedestrians, for example, school zones or public transport hubs’. I look forward to the minister’s response. OVENS VALLEY ELECTORATE Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:05): (5653) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and is on behalf of Kay Schembri of Cobram, although Kay is representative of many, many constituents and visitors to our regions who ask the same the same question: when will the government invest in the maintenance of tracks along the Murray River and other waterways? Camping and the enjoyment of outdoor activities are a significant part of Victorian’s leisure time, and the autumn is the most intensive time of the year for these activities. However, the poor state of the tracks in our camping area has made this a dangerous activity. Getting an ambulance or our volunteer CFA services into these areas is nearly impossible. I hope it does not take a death before the minister takes these requests seriously. Surely a team of road graders to make these tracks safe is not a tall order considering the money that is wasted by this government. If safety is a government priority, it is time to act now. BURWOOD ELECTORATE Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (15:06): (5654) My question is directed to the minister at the table, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. The Andrews government is continuing to make renting fairer for all Victorians, with an important new set of rental standards, the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2021, coming into effect on 29 March. One in four Victorians rent their property, about 1.5 million people. My family and I live in a rental property, as do many of my fellow constituents. It can be challenging calling a rental property home, seeking permission from a landlord to make simple modifications such as installing a child safety gate or planting a vegetable garden in the backyard. It is an unnecessary barrier to increasing safety and amenity in our own homes. We have already seen welcome rental reforms in Victoria. One year ago today changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 came into effect so that landlords must not unreasonably refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet on the rented premises. So my question is: Minister, what are the benefits of these new rental reforms for my constituents in Burwood, both landlords and renters? FOREST HILL ELECTORATE Mr ANGUS (Forest Hill) (15:07): (5655) My constituency question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. Minister, my question is: what is the government doing to enable Victorian residents to apply for the Victorian Energy Compare $250 power saving bonus rebate when they either are not overly competent on the computer or do not have a computer to apply online? Last

CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 679 week a constituent who is a pensioner rang my office in relation to this issue. By her own admission she does not competently use the internet and despite several attempts has been unable to successfully apply online for this rebate. She rang the quoted 1800 telephone number for assistance but was unhelpfully directed back to the website. At one point in the conversation she was rudely told to, ‘Go and have a cup of tea’. This response to my constituent shows just how out of touch this government is to the needs of ordinary Victorians. Many Victorians are continuing to suffer as a result of the decisions of this government, including by paying too much for their gas and electricity. HAWTHORN ELECTORATE Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (15:08): (5656) My constituency question is to the Minister for Mental Health. Thousands of Victorians have contributed to the report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, and it is only through these stories that the government can truly understand how to fix our mental health system. The government will deliver on every single recommendation from that final report. I am proud to be part of a government that has already committed $868 million, the biggest mental health investment in the history of Victoria. In the Eastern Melbourne Primary Health Network, which captures my electorate, over 1200 hospital admissions are registered every year for intentional self-harm, including attempted suicides. My question is: how will this funding support those accessing self-harm and suicide prevention services in my electorate of Hawthorn? MILDURA ELECTORATE Ms CUPPER (Mildura) (15:09): (5657) My constituency question is for the Minister for Higher Education. Could the minister please outline whether the government will prioritise funding in the May budget for Mildura’s SuniTAFE SMART Farm? SuniTAFE needs $10 million to upgrade facilities at its Cardross site, which currently consists of five ageing portable classrooms which are inadequate to meet the needs of the more than 500 students enrolled in horticulture courses. SuniTAFE is at the cutting edge of innovation and technology in horticulture, helping to drive our region’s billion-dollar horticulture industry and inspire the next generation of local farmers. Crops on site include emerging commodities like hemp—thanks in part to the industrial hemp task force—dwarf almonds and olives as well as traditional table and wine grape varieties, avocados and citrus. The funding would allow SuniTAFE to build a state-of-the-art, 100-seat lecture theatre as well as invest in new farm infrastructure to ensure SuniTAFE remains a centre of excellence for agriculture education in our region. BROADMEADOWS ELECTORATE Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (15:10): (5658) My constituency question is to the Minister for Employment. How will schools in Broadmeadows benefit from the Creative Workers in Schools program? The program is providing the opportunity for 150 creative industry workers to undertake a six-month residency in Victorian government schools, including special schools. Creative workers are vital for new industries and jobs, and there is a real need for them right now in the state district of Broadmeadows. There is an opportunity under the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0 to bring in a new production company that is seeking to establish. This would be an ideal way to coordinate through the schools into the industry. As you are well aware, Speaker, I have long campaigned—we have had Hollywood, then Bollywood; I am after ‘Broadywood’. POLWARTH ELECTORATE Mr RIORDAN (Polwarth) (15:11): (5659) My question is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, and my question is a very simple one: when is the Jamieson Creek campground going to open? On 27 February you wrote to me and said it is going to be open for Easter. Today— this morning—on 2 March your department wrote to all the people that are planning a wonderful Easter holiday at the Jamieson Creek campground and said, ‘Sorry, folks. It’s all over, red rover. Go home. You can’t come to the Great Ocean Road for the holidays because we still haven’t got the campground open’. The funding for this campground was given in 2015. If you can do a level crossing removal in allegedly a few weeks, surely you can open a campground that you promised in 2015 to

BILLS 680 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 the hardworking people who have suffered long and hard over the last 12 months and just want a simple yet spectacular holiday along the Great Ocean Road. LARA ELECTORATE Mr EREN (Lara) (15:12): (5660) My question is to the Minister for Community Sport, and I ask the minister: how will the rollout of the Get Active kids voucher program benefit families in my electorate of Lara, and specifically families with multiple children? The electorate that I represent— the Lara electorate—is home to a wonderful community of people, but unfortunately it is also home to some serious disadvantage. Suburbs such as Corio and Norlane have some of the highest levels of disadvantage across the state. We see many barriers for families wanting to access sport for their children, and there is a real need in the community to make it easier for every child, regardless of background or circumstances, to improve their health and wellbeing. I firmly believe that breaking down the barriers to participation, especially in areas such as my electorate, will see a record number of children getting active again. We all know that a healthy body creates a healthy mind. I am aware that the Get Active kids voucher program is a Victorian first, and I believe that this will be a great program for families in my electorate of Lara. Mr D O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, with your forbearance, given I could not get into the chamber in time before constituency questions, I would like to point out that adjournment question 4739 to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services remains outstanding. It was due on 10 December. I would appreciate it if you could follow it up for me. The SPEAKER: Thank you. We will follow that matter up. Bills CEMETERIES AND CREMATORIA AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Introduction and first reading Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (15:13): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act 2003 to protect affected persons against harm, pain and suffering that may be caused as a result of the exercise of rights of interment by or in favour of certain persons, to make various related amendments to that act and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:14): I ask the minister for a brief explanation, please. Mr FOLEY (Albert Park—Minister for Health, Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Equality) (15:14): I am more than pleased to provide a brief explanation to the house. This is a bill that will seek to protect the rights of victims and their families in circumstances where there is the potential for abuse either later in life or after murder suicides and the murder of victims post the interment of the victim and to protect the rights of families and those who remain to not have further harm visited upon them by a convicted perpetrator. Read first time. Ordered to be read second time tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 681

WORKPLACE INJURY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION) BILL 2021 Introduction and first reading Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (15:15): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:15): Can the minister provide a brief explanation, please? Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (15:15): The bill will amend the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 to enable workers with a genuine dispute certificate following unsuccessful conciliation to have access to arbitration by the Accident Compensation Conciliation Service. Arbitration provides a timely, low-cost and informal pathway as an alternative to court, providing injured workers with an effective means of achieving resolution to a workers compensation dispute. Read first time. Ordered to be read second time tomorrow. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Notice given. Committees SCRUTINY OF ACTS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE Alert Digest No. 3 Ms CONNOLLY (Tarneit) (15:17): I have the honour to present to the house a report from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, being Alert Digest No. 3 of 2021, on the following acts, bills and subordinate legislation:

COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) and Other Acts Amendment Act 2020 Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021 Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 Spent Convictions Bill 2020 State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2020 SR No 107—COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) (Commercial Leases and Licences) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2020 together with appendices. Ordered to be published.

DOCUMENTS 682 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Documents DOCUMENTS Incorporated list as follows: DOCUMENTS TABLED UNDER ACTS OF PARLIAMENT—The Clerk tabled the following documents under Acts of Parliament: Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority—Report 2019–20 Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability Victoria—Strategic Audit: Implementation of environmental management systems in Victorian Government 2019–20 Family Violence Protection Act 2008—Report on the Evaluation of the Amendment to s 31 of the Act— Family Violence Safety Notices National Education and Care Services Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioners and Ombudsman—Report 2019–20 Planning and Environment Act 1987: Infrastructure and Development Contribution Levies—Report 2019–20 Notices of approval of amendments to the following Planning Schemes: Glen Eira—C222 Greater Geelong—C366 Melton—C216, C226 Moyne—C73 Victoria Planning Provisions—V10 Statutory Rules under the following Acts: Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004—SR 8 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—SR 7 Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996—SR 9 Subordinate Legislation Act 1994—Documents under s 15 in relation to Statutory Rule 7 Victorian Independent Remuneration Tribunal and Improving Parliamentary Standards Act 2019— Members of Parliament (Victoria) Guidelines No 1/2021 Wildlife Act 1975—Wildlife (Prohibition of Game Hunting) Notice (Gazette S69, 12 February 2021). Bills SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (DECRIMINALISATION OF PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS) BILL 2020 Council’s agreement The SPEAKER (15:19): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Summary Offences Amendment (Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 without amendment. OWNERS CORPORATIONS AND OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2019 SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (DECRIMINALISATION OF PUBLIC DRUNKENNESS) BILL 2020 WORKPLACE INJURY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (PROVISIONAL PAYMENTS) BILL 2020 Royal assent The SPEAKER (15:19): I can inform the house that the Governor has given royal assent to the Owners Corporations and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2019, the Summary Offences Amendment

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 683

(Decriminalisation of Public Drunkenness) Bill 2020 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Provisional Payments) Bill 2020. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Appropriation The SPEAKER (15:19): I have received a message from the Governor recommending an appropriation for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. Business of the house PROGRAM Ms ALLAN (Bendigo East—Leader of the House, Minister for Transport Infrastructure, Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop) (15:20): I move:

That, under standing order 94(2), the orders of the day, government business, relating to the following bills be considered and completed by 5.00 pm on Thursday, 4 March 2021: Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020 Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021 Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. In making a few brief comments on the government business program for this week can I at the outset thank everyone who was involved in the tremendous work to organise this morning’s special sitting of this chamber at the Royal Exhibition Building. It was indeed a privilege to be one of those people present in that magnificent and historic building for the tabling of what is going to be a historic document in the state’s history as to how we can rebuild from the ground up the mental health system and the other community and social and economic supports that need to be buttressed around it so that we can do better for people experiencing mental illness and for their carers and loved ones. I particularly want to thank, Speaker, the officials and officers of your office and the Parliament more broadly. I know there was a lot to do in the last couple of weeks since the house last sat to make today happen. But when we were there this morning and saw what a special occasion it was and the difference it is going to make in terms of the lives of so many Victorians, I think we can all be a little bit proud of the role we had in making that happen, so again thank you to the staff of the Parliament, and by extension the staff of the Premier’s department, who worked very hard to make that happen. On that issue, the Deputy Premier and Minister for Mental Health has just given notice of a motion. It is the government’s intention to allow members of this place, as opportunities arise, to contribute to the take-note motion on the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health’s System final report because I think it is important that members in this place, who come from various parts of the state with different world views and life experiences, bring that to bear and also give voice to our constituents on this issue and do so I think in such a way that the record will judge those of us who work hard to act and take action on what has been presented to the government and the Parliament. We have been presented with a great challenge, and I think history will judge those who act and respond to that challenge and those who do not and those who choose to play politics and who choose to walk away from a challenge that has clearly been too great for them in the past to grasp. There are three bills on the program for debate this week that will hopefully receive the support of the chamber on their way through to the Legislative Council. Also, should there be time available to the house, we will devote time to the take-note motion that remains on the notice paper regarding the budget, because it was only four months ago that the budget was handed down and there is still a lot in there to talk about, a lot to refer to and a lot to implement. With those few comments, I once again with great optimism hope that the government business program has unanimous support in the chamber so we can get on with the important business of today—noting on a final, final note the agreement and cooperation of the chamber to allow for the

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 684 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 special sitting to happen today and for the arrangements over the course of this week and noting that the adjournment today will be a little bit later than normal at 8 o’clock to accommodate the additional time we need following this morning’s sitting. Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:24): I rise to lead the debate for the opposition on the government business program, and the news for the Leader of the House is that we will not be opposing the government business program. I know that that might come as a bit of a surprise, but that is the way we all decided collectively to show that there are times that we will work cooperatively and there are other times where we will struggle with some of the logic of the government business program. But this morning, as the Leader of the House mentioned, we were at the Royal Exhibition Building for the handing down and tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. The take-note motion by the Deputy Premier today will allow a number of people from the opposition side to speak on that. We have the first bill up: the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. When we first received this from the Department of Premier and Cabinet it was actually the ‘Planning and Heritage Amendment Bill’, which confused us when we went back to look to find out where it was. I think it might have been the member for Gippsland South who actually rang the Department of Premier and Cabinet and asked, ‘Where is the Planning and Heritage Amendment Bill 2021?’, to which they came back and said they had made a mistake and that it is actually planning and environment. So we have that. We have the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020, which we can debate today. Then, as the Leader of the House said, we have the budget papers, so hopefully we will have some time to be able to finish that this week. Tomorrow we can move on to the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021. It is a reasonably straightforward bill. I note that the Leader of the House has also mentioned that they are very keen to be able to get the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021 through this week. That will depend how long it takes in the Legislative Council before it comes back, so we will work with the clerks and the government to find out when that will actually take place. On those few words, we will not be opposing the government business program. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (15:26): I stand today to support the government business program outlined by the Leader of the House. I too would like to offer my thanks to everybody involved in what was truly a historic occasion this morning, which was the presentation of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System report. It was an extraordinary event, and thank you to you, Speaker, and to all of the people in the Department of Parliamentary Services who made it possible. I am very pleased to hear that there will be no opposition to the bills this week. I think that is really important, that we all work together— Mr Wells interjected. Ms SETTLE: I beg your pardon—that you did not object to the program. Thank you. This program contains more important bills that this government would like to see get through. Of particular importance for me is the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020. This bill is around amending the use and distribution of naloxone, and I am very pleased to see this through. It is an absolutely life-saving drug. I have seen it in action at Ballarat Community Health. I am very delighted to see that this will be something that we can all debate, and of course I will be giving my complete support to this bill. Any bill that saves lives is incredibly important. We will also be debating the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021—again, a very important piece of legislation. I note my colleague the member for Wendouree is in the house, and I know we both feel very strongly about the absolute beauty and heritage of Ballarat. Bills like this help us to preserve our beautiful home town, so I am very delighted to see this bill before the house. The Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021 is another very important bill. Whilst it might be said that some of it is fairly technical, it does support some

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 685 incredibly important measures. Of course we all learned many lessons during COVID, and those lessons—some of those lessons—are now being put into permanent legislation around enabling the court systems to work and work well. So, again, we have three pieces of very important legislation before us this week, and I too look forward to the opportunity to speak on the take-note motion on the mental health royal commission. It will have extraordinary impacts across all of Victoria, and I look forward to discussing the impacts it will have in my local region. So, on that, I would finally say that I support the government business program, I am glad that the opposition will be supporting the government business program and I look forward to debating the legislation as we go through. Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:30): I am pleased to briefly speak on the government business program and confirm that we are not opposing the government business program but not necessarily giving carte blanche to all the bills that will be coming forward, member for Buninyong. It is nice to be back here, but it is nice to have had the diversion, I guess, to the Royal Exhibition Building this morning from this place. People like myself and the member for Cranbourne and others around have had a fair bit of this place in the last few months with the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) too, so it was certainly a privilege to be at that beautiful building, the Royal Exhibition Building, this morning for what was a very historic occasion. And it is very important now, as others have said, that the government turns its attention to the budget and to delivering the outcomes of what is needed in our mental health system. I appreciate that the Deputy Premier has now given notice of a take-note motion and also that there is a take-note motion on the budget if needed for the business program this week. As I said, PAEC feels like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the moment. We have just finished one budget and we move onto the next, and then we are doing outcomes and then we are doing the next outcomes and so it goes. But of course the budget cycle is in full swing at the moment, and I know the Deputy Premier will be busy with mental health, but I am sure he is also focused on education preparations for the budget and I hope he will be finding funding for master planning for the Sale College redevelopment and also to finish the rebuild of Foster Primary School. There is plenty of work still to be done in many other things outside the portfolios that have been mentioned so far today. All attention as far as legislation goes I think at the moment will be focused on the other place with the state-of-emergency legislation—the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (State of Emergency Extension) Bill 2021. We look forward to seeing that come back here this week, and I hope there is something a bit better in it than what has been foreshadowed as far as the amendments agreed to at the moment. But I look forward to continuing the rest of the week and debating the three bills on the notice paper. Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (15:32): It is an absolute pleasure to join the government business program debate again and to have such an agreeable opposition. It is always so welcomed when the member for Rowville and the member for Gippsland South are so agreeable. This is what we know them to be, and sometimes they actually are, so thank you very much. As has been mentioned, this is a very important week again this sitting week as we are getting on with governing for the whole of Victoria. The three bills that we are debating are important bills that will deliver significant change and actually make Victoria a better and a fairer place, whether it be the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021, the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 or the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020. I am also very pleased that we have the notice of motion from the Minister for Mental Health regarding the opportunity for a take-note motion as well as the opportunity to speak on the budget. What a great budget it was in November, and I am really looking forward to having the opportunity to talk about how that budget is going to really deliver for the Ballarat region once again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 686 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

But today is such an important day, such a historic day, for the people of Victoria with the tabling of the final report into the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We made the commitment back in 2018 to implement this royal commission, and that is exactly what we have done. It has been a very, very important two years of community consultation, expert advice and careful deliberation, and now we have a very clear road map towards rebuilding our entire mental health system from the ground up. This has only been possible because of the great work of the commissioners, and I really want to thank them for their compassion and diligence throughout the last two years, as well as Professor McGorry as the chair of the expert panel. In Victoria we have such amazing medical people in our community, and to have their expert advice on this important issue is very important. But we also need to acknowledge the 12 000 Victorians who shared their lived experiences to make the system better for others. It was an act of selflessness to improve the lives and outcomes for so many others. I am sure everyone in this place was very moved by the story of Amelia Morris that she shared today, as well as Al Gabb, who talked about his experience at the Ballarat Health Services. That is very close to home for me, as a former board member of the Ballarat Health Services, that people have not received the care and support they have needed. That is what this royal commission was about—making sure that that does not happen anymore. So that is something that we are going to move forward with. This royal commission, as we said, was announced in 2018, but a lot of work has been done over the last six years by the member for Albert Park, the former Minister for Mental Health. I really want to acknowledge his work to get us to this point as well as the stewardship of the new Minister for Mental Health and the great job he has done bringing this report to the Parliament. This is very, very good news. The fact that we are going to be embracing every recommendation will mean better outcomes for the people of Victoria and particularly the people of Ballarat, which I represent. I really welcomed when Commissioner Armytage said today that this is not about filling potholes, it is about building a new road. Thank you very much for the opportunity just to make those few reflections. I welcome the opportunity to once again contribute to the government business program debate. I recommend it to the house. I thank the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business for their agreement on this and look forward to a very, very productive week in the Parliament. Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (15:36): I will make just a very quick contribution on the government business program, with the three bills that we have for the remainder of the week—the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Amendment Bill 2020 and the Justice Legislation Amendment (System Enhancements and Other Matters) Bill 2021, which cannot come on before tomorrow in any case. As we are all aware from the Leader of the House and the contribution to debate from the Manager of Opposition Business, we will not be opposing the government business program. But yes, we have heard from other contributors just in the last little while that today is an important day. No doubt today is an important day with the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. We know that there has been an interim report. In saying that, it is important to note that the Premier did mention during his contribution during that special sitting— and it is of some concern—‘it will not be simple, it will not be fast and it will not be easy’. Now, I get that, but moving forward to this parliamentary year, I am looking forward to significant legislative remedy coming before us, when we can discuss and debate not only the government business program but legislation in this house sometime during this year to seek those legislative remedies to make sure that our mental health system is better. Once again, as said in the admissions from the Premier, it is more than cracked, it is completely broken. Well, we need to fix that. We can use all the language we like, but this is important and we have to move very quickly. In saying that, despite the bipartisanship that the opposition will be offering on this, it is most important that the debate be robust for the best outcomes, so do not mistake robust debate and robust negotiation for partisanship. To get the best outcomes, the debates have to be strong. They have to be robust to get the best outcome for all of Victoria and all Victorians.

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 687

Just on some other business, once again from the Premier, just on the pairing arrangements for two members, because they are both matters on public record I wish the Minister for Police and Emergency Services a speedy recovery of her health and certainly congratulations to the member for Mordialloc on growing his family. We will be happy to make sure that, if there is a division during this sitting week, those pairing arrangements are successful. On that note, I look forward to the week advancing. Motion agreed to. Members statements ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (15:39): The first Parliament of the commonwealth of Australia opened at Melbourne’s Royal Exhibition Building 120 years ago. The Victorian Parliament sat alongside a makeshift hospital during the influenza pandemic. Today the Victorian Parliament returned to this grand eclectic landmark during another pandemic to honour the courage and fortitude of more than 12 500 people who testified to Victoria’s first Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, for too long society’s neglected shadow pandemic. The Andrews government defined the courage of conviction, committing in advance to implement all the report’s recommendations, and the Premier marked today’s moving event with a promise to rebuild a broken system with changes that will improve and save lives. As fate would fall, today marks the 10th anniversary of my inaugural speech to this Parliament, so I want to thank the Premier for the greatest gift in politics—government. Thanks to the Australian Labor Party for an opportunity beyond the realm of expectation, the humbling privilege of my life to serve this Parliament on behalf of the truest believers. Thank you to my colleagues and everyone I have worked with in Parliament. I look forward to renewed collaboration to improve the social determinants of life through lifelong learning for skills, jobs and meaning; better health for improved quality of life; and connecting the disconnected to opportunity through the insight, compassion and leadership displayed once again at today’s historic sitting of the Victorian Parliament. COVID-19 Mr WELLS (Rowville) (15:41): Frank, I thought you were about to announce your retirement after that. This statement condemns the Andrews Labor government for their refusal to call a royal commission or a WorkSafe Victoria investigation into the failed hotel quarantine that tragically led to the death of over 800 Victorians. Why is it that after eventually caving in to pressure from the opposition and calling a royal commission into your mates at Crown Casino, your government will not call for a royal commission into the botched hotel quarantine? As we all saw, the Coates inquiry was a whitewash, with no-one taking responsibility for the shambolic decisions that led to the hotel quarantine chaos. The Minister for Workplace Safety has confirmed there will not be a WorkSafe investigation into health and safety failures in hotel quarantine. This comes after there have been numerous situations where staff at these hotels have been spotted wearing garbage bags and not having proper PPE. With the devastation another lockdown caused over Valentine’s Day weekend, it is so important that this quarantine system works. This government needs to stop hiding from the truth and take responsibility for its negligence. LIVE AT THE BOWL Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:42): I recently had the honour of representing the Minister for Youth at The Push’s Live at the Bowl event, which featured the local talents of Skegss, Ruby Fields, the Vovos and King Stingray. It was an opportunity to meet the team from The Push as well, including CEO Kate Duncan, board members Jane Gazzo, Moira McKenzie and the irrepressible Ian Porter, as well as members from the New Slang program, who led the event’s planning and curation. The Push delivers a range of initiatives, including the state government’s FReeZA program, to help

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 688 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 young Victorians break into the music industry. The Push have incredible reach with more than 4.6 million people having streamed a Push participant on Spotify. Over 25 000 have attended their all- ages events, and over 1600 participants have attended their professional development workshops. Victoria’s live music scene is one of our greatest assets, and it is so important to continue investing in our creative industries as we come together to enjoy live events again. The Andrews government funded the Live at the Bowl event through the $17.2 million package to support COVID-safe performances. A package of more than $220 million in the recent state budget will help the creative sector reactivate and recover from the impacts of the pandemic. The Push is such a valuable organisation that supports the incredible music culture in our state. (Time expired) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (15:44): As International Women’s Day is just around the corner, I was delighted to attend the Yarrawonga CWA hall for one of Moira shire’s official celebrations of International Women’s Day. We all have so many important women in our lives that we simply cannot manage to be without. I am personally blessed to have my mother, Barbara, my mother-in-law, Valmai, my wife, Glenys, and two lovely daughters, Danielle and Brooke. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Our communities are much stronger, more resilient and better equipped because of all the women in our lives. So on 8 March I implore you to take the time to recognise and thank the women in our families and our broader communities. MENTAL HEALTH Mr McCURDY: Today in Parliament the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System was tabled. The Premier today acknowledged his government’s failures in this area, and as a former health minister he would be well placed to understand those failures. But it is now time to act, not just keep talking about mental health. Labor has been in government for 17 of the last 21 years in Victoria, so we need action. For so many families it is already too late, but for many families we need the support now. We need to understand and tackle the causes of mental health issues, not just manage the support needed after the fact. For many people the last year has increased anxiety and compounded existing conditions. Victorians need stability and consistency to navigate out of the dark days that we are in, because some days there are more important issues than the Big Build of Melbourne. WANGARATTA CUP Mr McCURDY: Well done to the team at the Wangaratta Turf Club on the running of this year’s Wangaratta Cup on Saturday. It was great to have crowds back trackside enjoying country racing. It was terrific to see the Wangaratta Turf Club back in good shape. CAMBODIA Mr SCOTT (Preston) (15:45): I rise to raise the plight of Australians currently on trial in absentia in Cambodia by the government of Hun Sen. This has been raised previously, but there have been further recent developments, with opposition leader Sam Rainsy sentenced to 25 years in prison and eight other opposition politicians sentenced to between 20 and 22 years in jail. During the period of Hun Sen’s 36 years in power there has been, sadly, political violence, the banning of opposition political parties, the deaths of human rights activists, including one who came to this place in order to discuss human rights violations in Cambodia, and the jailing of opposition activists, among other abuses. One of the Australians on trial in absentia in Cambodia is a former member of this place, Hong Lim. These trials have been described by the US ambassador to Cambodia, who stated that they were:

… troubled by sentences today— this is in reference to the opposition leader—

targeting political opposition leaders in Cambodia, particularly given a lack of due process …

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 689

Human Rights Watch’s Asia director, Phil Robertson, described them as being:

… based on bogus, politically motivated allegations manufactured by a dictatorial, single-party state determined to destroy the remaining fragments of Cambodia’s shattered democratic system. Cambodia has had a terrible history of abuse. There are currently Victorians who have bravely spoken out, in fact risking themselves for greater human rights in Cambodia. They have been put at risk—in fact their liberty has been put at risk—by the actions of the Cambodian government. BERWICK COLLEGE Mr BATTIN (Gembrook) (15:47): I had the pleasure last week of attending Berwick College, my old school, to present the captains badges to Alyssa, Mae, Trent and Mitchell, who I know will do a fantastic job. Now, the school itself has had some challenges over the last few years—2012 and 2013 saw a high level of youth suicide through our area, and Berwick College was part of that and was affected and impacted greatly. Kerri Bolch, who is the principal of that school, fought very hard to get a health and wellbeing centre at that school. I was very pleased to work with her from 2013 with a commitment in 2014. Obviously that was not matched at the time by the government but was matched in 2018 for the 2018 election, when both parties went to the election with the promise they would build it. It was so good to walk through that building and understand how important it is to young people, who can now have access to mental health services at the school and also in their year after school so that they can go back there and get some extra assistance, or to run extra programs for young people and their families to identify some of the high risks for young people in the area for youth suicides and for youth mental health. I was very pleased to see Travis Tuck has taken on one of the roles at that school. I think he will be a magnificent addition to the school community to work with young people, having faced many challenges himself and obviously having faced recently the loss of his brother Shane, a very good family friend of ours. I wish to congratulate Kerri Bolch on what she has achieved at that school and— (Time expired) ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (15:48): Today is truly a historic day, with the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System tabled in a joint sitting of the Victorian Parliament at the Royal Exhibition Building. The final report found that existing services are poorly integrated and that people living in rural and regional areas face additional challenges when accessing treatment, care and support, including a lack of local services. I am proud that the Andrews government has committed to implementing every one of the recommendations. The final report had 65 recommendations, some of which refer to the challenges that those of us living in regional and rural communities face. Those challenges include the need for more resources, digital service delivery and incentives to attract a mental health workforce into regional and rural areas. Locally these recommendations will help support the tireless work of our local mental health services, such as Headspace, Ballarat Health Services, Wellways at the Ballarat Base Hospital, Western Victoria Primary Health Network, Ballarat Community Health and many of our local GPs, to name but a few. I would like to take a moment to thank my very good friend and former co-worker Rick Corney, who was the first mental health peer support worker at Ballarat Community Health and was one of the many people who told their story so that we could fix this system. I want to thank everyone who contributed to the 12 500 submissions to the royal commission. HORACE PETTY ESTATE Mr HIBBINS (Prahran) (15:50): Yesterday, as always, it was enjoyable to visit the Horace Petty public housing estate in the Prahran electorate and sit down and have a cup of tea with residents and chat to them about the need to upgrade public housing in the Prahran electorate. It was also good to

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 690 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 visit the TRY kindergarten onsite, as it always is, and have a chat to the educators and hang out with the kids there. There is no doubt that our public housing estates have been neglected for far too long. In regard to the public housing estates in the Prahran electorate—the Horace Petty estate; there are also ones in Windsor, in Prahran and in St Kilda—they do need upgrading, whether that be rebuilding parts of the estate that are simply not fit for purpose with new and better homes or upgrading the units in the existing towers that have not been upgraded, including putting in air conditioning and improving the grounds, the security, the cleaning and the maintenance. These are all needed on those sites to ensure that everyone in our community has a safe and secure place to call home. I really urge the government now to carry on from their announcement in the last budget about investment in social housing and make sure that we get investment in public housing in the Prahran electorate— (Time expired) BOX HILL TRANSIT INTERCHANGE Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (15:51): I would like to thank the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and Minister for Public Transport for visiting the Box Hill interchange with me last week. The Box Hill interchange is one of the busiest transport interchanges in Victoria, demand for which will only continue to grow with the residential and commercial developments planned for Box Hill, along with the city-shaping Suburban Rail Loop. Last year the government invested $500 000 to provide the bus deck with a much-needed refresh, but more is needed. It was great to take the minister through the interchange to see firsthand many of the issues that need to be addressed, such as improving commuter parking for locals, improving amenity and accessibility and redeveloping the facility to better meet the needs of Box Hill residents and workers. SALVATION ARMY BOX HILL CORPS Mr HAMER: Congratulations to the Salvation Army Box Hill Corps on the opening of their new building at 1010 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill, last Saturday. More than just a church, the new building provides a number of community spaces, including shower and toilet facilities for rough sleepers, a community pantry and onsite counselling services to look after the most vulnerable members of our community. SURREY HILLS MUSIC FESTIVAL Mr HAMER: The Surrey Hills Music Festival was back last weekend. This wonderful event, run by the Surrey Hills Neighbourhood House, showcased fantastic local music acts, including Dirty Rascal, Emily Soon, Horns of Leroy, Jade Alice and Surrey Hills’s very own, The Mob. Hundreds attended and enjoyed terrific food stalls and a jam-packed music program. SURREY HILLS AND CANTERBURY CRICKET CLUBS Mr HAMER: Can I finish by providing special thanks to the Surrey Hills Cricket Club and the Canterbury Cricket Club for hosting me on the weekend to talk about the level crossing project. Good luck for the finals. (Time expired) SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (15:53): It was with much fanfare that this government announced its latest round of business supports after the second lockdown, but again, too many that were forced to shut do not qualify. Of the many who contacted my office, here is one example:

Good Morning Tim, My name is Annette … I own a small business in Orbost called FB Dicken & Son … I have … been on the State Government website to apply for the $2000.00 Business … grant.

… My business is not … Eligible … I am very disappointed … as I still have to pay Rent and all Outgoing … there is a gap in this grant and it’s not fair on small businesses like myself …

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 691

Annette then went on to quote four other businesses in that town that are not eligible. Minister and Premier, can you stop being so mean-spirited that your strict criteria rule out so many businesses that have had to close? I have raised this before, other MPs in this place have raised this before, but you continue to ignore so many businesses. My business sector has had enough. They have had drought, they have had fires and they have had COVID. Stop talking and start delivering. The owners of Coonawarra Farm Resort in Glenaladale have been advised by their insurance company that they will not be renewed for fire risk because of the unacceptable state of the nearby state forest. A resident of Swifts Creek is in a similar position. The government must address the insurance industry’s lack of confidence in its ability to manage fire risk on public land or there will be an exodus of businesses. SUNBURY ELECTORATE SPORTS FACILITIES Mr J BULL (Sunbury) (15:54): Last week was a very big week in my electorate. I was fortunate enough to join councillors from the City of Hume on behalf of the Minister for Local Government in the other place to attend a number of openings courtesy of the Andrews Labor government’s Growing Suburbs Fund. I was absolutely thrilled to be able to open the redeveloped Goonawarra Neighbourhood House. This is a $350 000 upgrade meaning more space and even more programs for our fast-growing community. We also had the opportunity to attend John McMahon Reserve, which is a terrific sporting precinct within our local community. It is an over $4 million development— $2 million from this government, just over $2 million from the Hume City Council and $100 000 from Sport and Recreation Victoria. This is also a terrific local community space. Finally, we had the opportunity on the same day to visit the terrific Bulla Village Tennis Club, where we were able to open the brand new pavilion, a $600 000 investment—$300 000 from the Growing Suburbs Fund and $300 000 from the City of Hume. It was absolutely terrific to also recognise the service of Larry Pelley, who has been a member of that club for over 30 years. Larry has dedicated his life to his community, the local fire brigade and of course the tennis club and the community more widely. It was a terrific opportunity and a great day for residents in my electorate. COVID-19 Mr ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (15:56): I rise to condemn the Andrews Labor government’s complete inability to appropriately support the small businesses that have been smashed by its repeated lockdowns. The government claims that the most recent lockdown was due to the hyperinfectiousness of the UK COVID variant. When that theory was blown out of the water by Professor Peter Collignon, who found that the ‘real issue in Victoria is infection control’ and ‘infection control breaches’, the spin doctors and PR wizards went into absolute overdrive. Yes, out came the press releases, ‘Support for traders’, ‘$143 million in grants’, but we know that four out of five Victorian businesses were not even eligible to apply for these grants. And frankly, offering $143 million in compensation when the loss to Victorian businesses as a result of that lockdown was closer to $1 billion—that is $1 billion that would have otherwise been in the pockets of mum and dad small business owners to support themselves, to support their families, to support their staff and to support their suppliers—is just plain insulting. But it is okay to get it wrong. It is okay to get it wrong if you are prepared to work with others to get it right, but this government cannot do that. It is not in their DNA. David Barbey of Sandringham wrote to me just yesterday saying that the five-day lockdown has set his business back at least five months. Shame on this government. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (15:57): On each day that I have represented my community in the 18 years I have been in Parliament I have tried to think about the Yan Yeans and Merndas of my community. In Woiwurrung language ‘Yan Yean’ means ‘boy’ and ‘Mernda’ means ‘young girl’, and today we saw a report tabled in a joint sitting of Parliament that values and takes care of the Yan Yeans of today and the Merndas of today and also tomorrow. I want to particularly thank the royal

MEMBERS STATEMENTS 692 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 commissioners, who put so much work into this report and so much heart and have come out with practical recommendations as they were asked to do by our Premier. I want to thank the 12 000 Victorians who told their stories: women and men of all ages and backgrounds—country, city, suburban, gay, straight, Indigenous and CALD communities. We heard particularly from Amelia Morris and Al Gabb, both from regional Victoria, who told experiences of where the mental health system had let them down. I want to particularly acknowledge the families of those who have committed suicide in recent years in my community and pledge that I will work with this report and with them to ensure that these lives are not— (Time expired) COVID-19 Mr TILLEY (Benambra) (15:59): To the silent majority, I stand here today to say I hear you. I hear you when I drop into the drycleaners, a family business decimated by the totalitarian control of a power-mad Premier with no avenue for compensation. I hear you mowing the neighbour’s lawn, the first income for five days and excluded from the government’s handouts. I hear you when you finally get to work in Albury, victims of lazy public policy and 20 cases of COVID 350 kilometres away. I hear you, Rutherglen Cats and Mitta United, desperately needing juniors—juniors who cannot get sports vouchers because their parents are not on a pension. The Tallangatta Old Time Dance organisers are still looking to move across the border because of the government’s restrictive rules. This government’s failure to understand the ramifications of its actions is mind-blowing. It was not just hospitality and florists caught up in your Valentine’s Day massacre—it was the delivery driver, the butcher, the laundry, the staff, the cleaners, and the list goes on. Then you offer a circuit-breaker recovery package that proves to be another plan without planning, full of media fanfare but no substance. It will get to less than one in 10 small businesses in this state, and it offers no confidence to those who fear the next Dandemic lockdown. Like the fans at the tennis, I say, ‘Boo’. SUNSHINE PRIVATE HOSPITAL Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (16:00): As many would know, I have enormous respect and admiration for the healthcare heroes of Western Health. Equally I am very passionate about people in the west having access to quality and effective healthcare services, which is why it was an absolute honour to join stakeholders recently and be briefed on the new state-of-the-art Sunshine private hospital, a key pillar of our government’s Sunshine health, wellbeing and education precinct in Sunshine and St Albans. The new $140 million private facility funded by Australian Unity will be built directly opposite the fantastic Sunshine Hospital on Furlong Road in St Albans, and works will begin in April. This will also create over 200 jobs just during the construction period. We know that Sunshine private hospital will complement not only the existing services offered by Western Health, like the Joan Kirner Women’s and Children’s Hospital built by our government, but also the newly built emergency department at Sunshine Hospital, and I am looking forward to being part of the official opening of it very shortly. But most importantly the new hospital will really give the people of my electorate of St Albans and the west a genuine choice when accessing healthcare services in our region. Along with the new Sunshine transport super-hub, the airport rail link will be the gateway connecting Sunshine and St Albans to the world. We are seeing time and time again how Sunshine and the west are establishing themselves as well. (Time expired) BAYSWATER ELECTORATE SPORTING CLUBS Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (16:02): As a proud Richmond supporter I cannot tell you how much I missed football in 2020, but no more than locals across my local patch. Of course 2020 was a really tough year for our grassroots sporting clubs, and some of the codes most affected were the AFL and Rugby League in my local area. We know it is not just a game; it is so much more for thousands of locals and so many kids. But 2021 is upon us, and I am proud now to declare local footy and Rugby League are back. I would like to give a quick shout-out to some amazing local clubs for continuing to support their communities

MEMBERS STATEMENTS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 693 this past year and who will be kicking off very soon with their new season. To Bayswater Football Club, Bayswater Junior Football Club, Boronia Hawks football club, Fairpark Football Club, Heathmont Jets football club, Knox Women’s Football Club, Ringwood football club, The Basin Football Club and the Eastern Raptors Rugby League Club—because I have been told it is Rugby League, not rugby—and to all our local clubs kicking off, I cannot wait to see you in action. BAYSWATER EDUCATION PLAN Mr TAYLOR: A big thanks to the students of Bayswater Primary, Bayswater North Primary, Bayswater South Primary, Bayswater West Primary and Bayswater Secondary for giving their feedback on the Bayswater education plan on what they love about their schools and what the future of education in Bayswater should look like. The education plan is one of only eight in Victoria’s history and is a game changer for education locally. It has already delivered a significant investment to our local schools. I cannot wait to bring you more local updates. TAFE FUNDING Mr TAYLOR: Of course a quick reminder that there are more than 50 TAFE free priority courses and preapprenticeship courses to choose from. The free TAFE for priority courses was an initiative that began in 2018, allowing students to apply for courses that directly lead to jobs that are most in demand. It is all about giving Victorian industry the skills they need to help us rebuild from coronavirus. The Andrews government will always back our TAFE sector. For more information, go to www.vic.gov.au/free-tafe. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (16:03): Today is a very important day for all Victorians. I was heartened to hear from the member for Benambra that we should not confuse the debate with partisanship. I welcome the debate. I welcome the bipartisanship and hope that that is what we see. In my first speech in this house I talked about my aunty who lived with schizophrenia and was bipolar. As part of her extended family I did not live with that every day. My mother used to visit my aunty every day for years, and her direct family lived with that every day. It was something that at least taught me that mental health is normal, whether it be good or ill or otherwise. It is normal to need help. So hearing today about the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System report and knowing that we will take up every recommendation—I encourage the opposition to do the same—is important to not only my extended family but every family. Because in every family there is an Aunty Barb. In every family there is my friend Paul, who is no longer with us. In Dad’s shop I learned how to say, ‘How can I help?’, but now we know. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (16:05): Today is indeed a very, very significant day, a day when we can rule a line under a failed system and look forward to much, much better mental health outcomes for Victorians. I will of course take the opportunity to speak on the take-note motion later in the week, but I did want to reflect, because it was today, on this really, really important moment in the life of the Victorian Parliament and in the life of this government. There were so many moving words today, particularly from Amelia Morris and Al Gabb, who shared their lived experiences and who spoke to the yawning chasm between a perfect system and the system that they experienced. We know that there is just so much work that needs to be done to bring the mental health system up to community expectations, up to our expectations and ultimately to help make a real difference to the lives of so many people who, like me, have suffered mental ill health. There were moving words today from the Premier and the Deputy Premier, who both spoke of the impact of suicide, and I think it is absolutely commendable that we are bringing that topic into the light, that we are now having these discussions. I hope we can proceed on this issue in a spirit of genuine bipartisanship, although I am not particularly heartened by some of the form today.

BILLS 694 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO VICTORIA’S MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (16:06): Today during a historic joint sitting of Parliament the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System report was handed down. The report findings will be fully implemented by this state government as we rebuild our mental health system to give the people the care they need. Now, in every MP’s office we have heard so many heartbreaking episodes of navigating a broken and disjointed system, and I have experienced this system. When Amelia spoke so bravely this morning about her own experience, it was very, very close to home. To everyone who bravely contributed, thank you. To everyone who has worked on this royal commission and to current and former health ministers, I say thank you. To those who acknowledge that this system needs to be rebuilt but would rather sit back and weaponise the mental health royal commission recommendations without even announcing bipartisan support for them, I would say think of your family, think of your friends, think of your constituents and how you can help them. This is far too important to be playing games with. I would also ask them to consider: if we do not rebuild this system now, when? And if it is not us, who is it going to be? This is a moment in time we just cannot ignore, too many lives are at stake. We have to rebuild with compassion and focus and also based on the experiences of people like Amelia and Al. Theirs and many other untold stories remained that way for far too long, but we honour them by leading the nation in our rebuilding of the mental health system and putting that mental health cultural stigma on trial. That change begins now. PASCOE VALE SOUTH PRIMARY SCHOOL Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (16:08): Recently I had the opportunity to visit Pascoe Vale South Primary School to again inspect the stage 1 works of their redevelopment and also excitingly to turn the sod for stage 2. The new stage 2 will deliver for the school a new school hall, a support space and a playground project. This is all part of the Andrews Labor government’s rebuilding of our schools in our local areas. A big thankyou to school principal Carmel Lancuba, assistant principal Michelle Tedeschi, school business manager Kaye Sperling, school council treasurer Alana Sear and all of the school leaders who led me on a fantastic tour of the new school. It was very exciting to see the unveiled facilities and what we have already constructed. It was also great as you drove up Reynard Street to be able to see that the project has well and truly come to life, and the new buildings just pop from the street. It was also really fantastic to join the students in turning the first sod for stage 2. The ground was tough, but we all took a turn and collectively got the ground turned, and each of the students learned how to get that shovel in there and move the dirt so that we could build the new school hall and the playground in that space. The students, the parents and the staff at Pascoe Vale South Primary School are all very well connected with their school facilities and have fundraised a lot to support this project as well. Bills PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Mr WYNNE: That the bill be now read a second time. Mr T SMITH (Kew) (16:10): I rise to present the opposition’s contribution on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, and I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to address concerns about the potential tax liability for landowners resulting from the recovery of costs for precinct structure planning whilst still providing for the heritage measures in the bill’. The opposition supports a great number of the measures imparted in this bill, particularly the measures regarding heritage protections. I have talked a lot about heritage protections since I have been the Shadow Minister for Planning and Heritage, along with Shadow Minister for Housing and Shadow

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 695

Minister for Local Government. I did so largely because of an outrage that was committed against the Victorian people and indeed those of us who over the years enjoyed an ale or two at the Corkman hotel, near my alma mater, the University of Melbourne. That hotel was demolished illegally in 2016 illegally. It is terrific to see the member for Burwood in here, who was the lobbyist for the two crooks who went to jail for contempt of court in connection to that outrageous cultural crime against our city. I do support the measures in this bill that will strengthen local heritage protections through disincentives to deter unlawful demolition of buildings that have been given heritage protection by essentially banning future development on that site for a period of up to 10 years. I think that is a good reform. But in making a bipartisan commitment to improving heritage protections, particularly at the local level, I do wish to detail for the house the shemozzle that was the ongoing enforcement process for those two crooks and how essentially they will still make quite a fortune from their illegal activity. It is important to note that when they knocked that building down and illegally dumped asbestos near a childcare centre, certain undertakings were given by the member for Burwood’s firm on behalf of the developers—or, for want of a better description, cowboys. That was embraced by the Minister for Planning, who gave an undertaking that that pub would be rebuilt. It is 2021; there is no pub. In fact the undertaking that subsequently was given by these individuals was that they would begin the process of constructing a park, and that is why they went to jail—because they did not do that either. But if we can return to the role of the government here, of course I am not blaming the government for these two crooks knocking down the pub. I wish they could have gone to jail at the time, but the law did not provide for that, unfortunately. The courts that heard a number of these cases made the case that had the law been available to them to send these individuals to jail, they would have been sent to jail. The minister did boast at the time that the Corkman hotel would be entirely rebuilt, but it never was. My question has always been: why didn’t the Minister for Planning make his interim controls, which required the full restoration and reconstruction of the Corkman hotel, permanent? Why did he then, along with the City of Melbourne, give these crooks a windfall gain by rezoning this land to give them an ability to make quite a significant profit by allowing a building of up to 40 metres on the site? Now, that is a very important question, because I have constantly said that that site should have been rezoned to nothing or compulsorily acquired by the state so that these thieves, which is what they are, could not make a cracker from their crime. So the minister introduced planning controls on 18 October 2018 which allowed for a 40-metre or 10- to 12-storey development on the site. Why did the minister change the rules for these two? Why did he not rezone the site to zero height, or why was it not compulsorily acquired so that very lucrative site just near the law school at the University of Melbourne could be used for something productive, whether that be social housing or a public park, or even potentially sold to the university? That would have been appropriate, because what we had was rubble. I understand that some efforts have been made for a park to be constructed there, but at every turn this government has been laughed at by two very crooked individuals who were formerly represented by the member for Burwood. Ms Green: Oh, pipe down. Mr T SMITH: I hear—I suspect—the member for Yan Yean. These are matters of public record, so she can disagree with that statement, but unfortunately the facts speak for themselves. So that is the sorry tale of the Corkman, and the government’s response has been, now, finally, an introduction of a power for the minister to make an order, published in the Government Gazette, that prohibits for up to 10 years the use or development of land on which a heritage building has been unlawfully demolished and the person—maybe the owner or the developer or perhaps another person, such as a builder or demolisher—has been found guilty of an offence under section 126 of the act. We support that. We think that is appropriate, but what of the many other cases that I have seen in my time as Shadow Minister for Planning and indeed going way back to when I was mayor of Stonnington, where heritage buildings have been demolished lawfully? What is the government doing to protect Marvellous Melbourne—beautiful properties in heritage suburbs, established suburbs, throughout our city that

BILLS 696 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 unfortunately have seen the wrecking ball on far too many occasions? There was Forres in Kew, which was a beautiful Federation-era property in Edward Street that was demolished in 2016; the debacle of planning amendment C299 throughout Boroondara, which basically allowed heritage properties to be demolished on a whim; and the farce that was the Currajong property on Auburn Road in Hawthorn East, which received much media attention, where a number of Victorian-era properties had been demolished on one side of the road. Thankfully interim controls were placed over Currajong and 337 Auburn Road. Now, as I understand it those interim controls are still in place and that building remains intact. This is an important part of protecting our cultural and built-form heritage in Melbourne. I have said it time and time again on various planning and heritage issues in this place, but my predecessor as the member for Kew, Dick Hamer, was the first Premier in Australia to bring in heritage protections for heritage buildings in Australia, and that early heritage act in the early 1970s set the standard across our country for the protection of heritage buildings. Melbourne has lost some absolute gems, and that is to our great shame. Now, thankfully, we have a state heritage protection regime that has largely protected buildings of our significant history. We were in one of the most important buildings in our city this morning, and there have been moves over the last 120 years for the demolition of the Royal Exhibition Building. Thankfully that never came to pass, and if it had it would have been a cardinal sin against the heritage not just of this city but of this nation. It is that built-form heritage that Dick Hamer started to protect after a number of significant Victorian-era buildings were demolished in the central city, and thankfully over the years we have stopped a lot of that wanton cultural carnage from going ahead. But it is now seeping into the suburbs. There is that fundamental clash between the need to accommodate an ever-growing city and the very great need to protect its built-form livability as well as its environmental livability, and that goes to our streetscapes and indeed our canopies, which are so important for, particularly in summer, keeping our suburbs cool and as livable as possible. This is where I suppose there is that fundamental contradiction between the property market, which is a fundamental of our economy, and I suppose a more conservative urge to conserve and protect our heritage clashes. It is an issue that I think as members of Parliament of Victoria and as former councillors we have dealt with on many, many different occasions. It is a case-by-case basis, and obviously sometimes it is actually quite subjective. What I might regard as a heritage building and a beautiful building that was built in the late 19th or early 20th century others might not think has too much heritage value at all, but equally I might think that something built in the 1950s or 60s is a dog’s breakfast while others think it has tremendous architectural value. I am not often persuaded by that line of argument, but that is not really for me to say. We do need, I think, a far stronger regime for heritage protection in our suburbs, and this bill goes some way to doing that. But there is always that contradiction between the roles of councils and state government. There are some hidden nasties in this bill, particularly with regard to costs, particularly costs on precinct structure planning. I have a letter here from the Housing Industry Association and their CEO, Fiona Nield, and I am going to read some of these sections out to the house because I think they are important for an understanding of some of the implications in this bill, particularly part 5 of the bill:

HIA strongly objects to the proposal to establish a funding system for structure planning costs. It is understood such funds are to be sourced using a portion of monies contributed to an Infrastructure Contributions Plan (ICP) and these funds will be allocated to the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) to cover the costs of preparing structure plans. HIA submit it is inappropriate and unjust that such funds are used to supplement the fiscal requirements of a state government agency such as the VPA. The operation and function of state government agencies must not rely on funds of this type in full or in part. Alternative sources of funding, such as drawing from broader tax bases would be more appropriate. A funding system such as this would be to the detriment of ICPs and the delivery of required infrastructure paid for developers/landowners. There are other industry bodies who have made similar contributions. The property council on this point says:

Our primary point of clarification relates to the ability of the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) to recover certain costs. Our position is that this should result in a more equitable position between landowners and

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 697

encourage the VPA to continue to streamline the Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) process so that it is efficient and provides the property industry and the community with full confidence in the rigour of the planning and approval process. Increased efficiency on the part of the VPA will … minimise costs to both the property industry, and the end homebuyer. It will also serve to deliver Victoria’s critically important supply of new homes and improve housing affordability across Victoria. The property council seek clarification on:

The level of transparency in respect of how the proposed fees are calculated, collected and utilised. And that is a fair point they make because this bill is rather opaque about how this cost recovery mechanism for precinct structure planning will be applied. It is a great shame that we do not go into consideration in detail in this place all that often, but in the committee stage in the other place these issues hopefully will be answered most fulsomely by the government. The property council continues:

Is there a risk that this may delay new PSP commencements? For example, third party funding agreements can commence the process when the VPA does not have sufficient budget. Is this proposal, in effect, that the VPA can pre-fund PSP costs and then recoup from ICPs? These are questions that the government will need to answer which I cannot ask here because we do not go into committee.

Can third parties still cashflow early PSP work and recoup via ICP credits? Now, the Master Builders Association of Victoria have said something similar:

MBV understands the importance of having funding towards precinct structure planning done in a way that is transparent and equitable. But they want to see more information on how this would be conducted so that it is transparent and equitable. These are legitimate questions from three major industry bodies who wish to see how property owners will be essentially taxed further under this proposed change. Now, the HIA make a number of other observations, and these regard public acquisition overlays (PAOs). Part 3 of the bill talks about compensation amendments. The bill makes amendments to the planning compensation scheme for planning blights. The intent of these amendments is described as addressing issues and risks related to the operation of that scheme. Now, the risk primarily exists where structure plans or similar documents in the planning scheme propose a public use in the future without a public acquisition overlay. The proposed changes seem to ensure that compensation is not available to an owner of land unless the relevant provision of the planning scheme—that is, to reserve the land as a result of the proposed amendment—expressly states as a purpose to reserve land for a public purpose and it is contained in a public acquisition overlay. Now, there have been no successful claims for compensation before an express reservation is made, so this proposed legislation may be of little impact apart from acting as a delay mechanism for a landowner’s right to claim some return for their land, which now has a more restricted use attached to it. These changes lock in an extremely unfortunate position for landowners who are on notice that their land may be required for public purpose but do not have certainty in the planning scheme expressly reserving the land for a public purpose through a public acquisition overlay. We are going to seek further clarification from the government in the other place on these matters because, for example:

It is HIA’s view that, identifying ‘land reserved for a public purpose’ confirms in planning that there is a reservation in the planning scheme and the purpose is clear. There may not be a PAO on the land for a variety of reasons such as slowness to apply a PAO through a Planning Scheme Amendment but the absence of a PAO should not preclude a claim for compensation. Now, I think these issues regarding property rights are vital. They are important questions that need to be asked. The industry is vital to Victoria’s economy. I have got three major industry bodies that have got legitimate questions. As I have already foreshadowed, these questions will be asked in the other place, and I expect amendments in the other place to try and remove some of these nasties or indeed clarify what they are going to actually entail for those landowners.

BILLS 698 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

I return to the original theme of what a large part of this bill is setting out to achieve, which is a greater protection of heritage. That is something that the opposition supports, but I note that over the last five years there has been that one issue of the Corkman, where there was an unlawful demolition which caused a huge amount of controversy and the jailing of two individuals that were represented by the member for Burwood. That should never, ever have occurred, and the fact that it did is a great shame, as is the fact that it took so long for those individuals to essentially face justice. But more to the point is the fact that the various undertakings that the government gave with regard to what those individuals had to do, particularly boasting that that pub would be rebuilt, were nothing but lies. The other point is that this planning minister gave those two crooks a windfall gain of a 40-metre height limit—10 to 12 storeys—on such a lucrative site that no matter how many days they spend in jail they will profit from their crime. These criminals were represented by the member for Burwood. That these people will profit from their crime is an absolute disgrace. We said time and time again that that property should be rezoned to literally zero, to nothing, so they could not make a cent—or, better yet, compulsorily acquired. Now, the government will say, ‘Oh, you can only compulsorily acquire a property at its highest and best use’. Well, guess who sets that highest and best use? Mr Hodgett: Who? Mr T SMITH: The planning minister, in conjunction with Melbourne City Council. If you can understand this, Acting Speaker, they gave these two crooks a massive windfall gain where they will profit from their crime for years and years to come. If they had simply rezoned this to virtually no height whatsoever or rezoned it to compulsorily turn it into a park or social housing or something productive, where these two individuals could not profit from the heinous cultural vandalism that they committed on our city and indeed committed on that precinct around the University of Melbourne, then we would have been far better off for it. But I suspect the minister was given some fairly shoddy advice. I do believe that his intentions on heritage matters have been pretty reasonable; hence we can see that reflected in this bill. But the response by this government to that outrage in Carlton has been shambolic at best, and unfortunately these measures, as much as they are supported by this side of the house, have come far too late in the piece. To summarise, there are some aspects of this bill that we quite like. There are some questions that need to be answered. There appears to be quite a tax grab with regard to structure planning. There needs to be greater clarification with regard to compensation around public acquisition overlays and the like, which we will obviously cover further in debate in the other place where we can go into committee— because that never happens here. And on that note, I will sit down. Mr McGUIRE (Broadmeadows) (16:32): Planning is crucial for our economic recovery from the pandemic and recession. Victoria is widely hailed as having the best planning framework in the country, and this is really important because it provides a significant competitive advantage. Significantly, the government is continuing to improve the planning system to make sure it is fit for purpose, recognising the challenging times and community needs. I want to commend the Minister for Planning, who is also the Minister for Housing, for his will, wit and nous in being able to combine these roles for life-changing social and economic policy, which is best defined in the recent Victorian budget, which will deliver a historic $5.3 billion Big Housing Build, the biggest ever in Australia. This project will construct more than 12 000 new homes throughout Victoria, as well as supporting about 10 000 jobs per year during the next four years. That is the significance of this investment. The aim is to supercharge Victoria’s economic recovery, and that is vital. The package is designed to boost Victoria’s social housing supply by 10 per cent in only four years, providing a stable foundation for thousands of Victorians to build their lives. This is a really important change for culture, for generations and for the system that we have for affordable and social housing. That needs to be established. Then we look at this bill. This bill adds opportunity. I want to focus on the growth areas infrastructure contribution, and I want to advocate some other ways where I believe we can add further value. The growth areas infrastructure contribution funding captures some of the windfall profits from developers and landowners where broad hectare land is rezoned for urban housing or employment areas. So the

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 699

GAIC funds are used for the purposes of state-funded infrastructure projects. Now, these are a range of different but vital projects, such as primary and secondary government schools and other education facilities; health, wellbeing and family violence preventative facilities; justice facilities, including courts and police stations; new railway stations and associated works; future transport corridors; and bus services for the first five years of operation. The growth areas infrastructure program has funded 112 projects since 2016, with 66 projects currently in the active delivery phase, so this is really important for how we get the social infrastructure where we need it most. The forecast is that by June the government will spend almost $600 million of the growth areas infrastructure contribution funding from developers and landowners towards future projects for new communities, and there is more to come. This is in addition to the Labor government’s investment in Victoria’s biggest ever infrastructure pipeline through our Big Build program. The government’s continued spending provides a strong pipeline of projects that will be delivered when and where they are needed most. It is really critical for business to understand that there is the pipeline—that the funding is there, that the projects are assessed and that they come sequentially, so that we can keep the Big Build going and have the Big Housing Build unfurled and the other major economic stimulus packages that the government has provided. I want to acknowledge the importance of all of these contributions. But in the spirit of trying to add value, I want to also advocate for the growth areas infrastructure contributions to be invested not just in greenfield sites. My argument is that they could also be extended to include brownfield sites. I am making this proposal as chair of the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0. What we have been able to do in Broadmeadows is attract new investors. That was a bipartisan strategy. We even got the Business Council of Australia to come to Broadmeadows. We had major companies discuss what could happen in the future. One of the investors said he was inspired by this proposition. That ended up with a $500 million investment in the two Ford sites—that is, Broadmeadows and Geelong. This is critical to how we bring back our economic activity and how we look at what is the value from that and where that should be invested. What I am arguing for is, when there are major investors attracted like that, looking at how we get the balance right to ensure that any contributions that they make deliver social infrastructure back to where they are needed most as a matter of equality. Some of these would have to address historic failures, and they are matters of balance. But I do think it is time for the government to look at this as a next step, a next proposal—to look at not just greenfield sites but how we go back into these industrial heartlands and engine rooms. Remember we are trying to fast-track through deindustrialisation and get them to advanced niche manufacturing—and the investment has come. It is not just the Ford site. Sims have got another major investment for a circular economy facility nearby, and other major companies are also wanting to do that, so I think that is something that we need to look at next. The other initiative I am proposing is to look at an equalisation mechanism. What I am advocating for is having oversight of where funds are being spent within municipalities—to make sure that they are invested in the areas that need them the most and also to cover off, if you like, a local version of the loan council for the commonwealth, the way that the Australian Football League strategy is to protect the poorest clubs to help them survive and thrive. This is an issue I think we need to look at from the equality aspect. We also need to recognise that while these communities underscore economic prosperity, too often in the past there have been gaps with the social infrastructure that was required. How do we actually ensure that that does not happen again? On another proposition, in my role as chair of the Broadmeadows Revitalisation Board 4.0 we have got a new model to try and make sure that planning between the different tiers of government— municipal and state—acts more in parallel rather than sequentially. This is to maintain the rigour of due diligence but also to streamline the process. This has been really important in the last year when there have been record investments from the Australian government and the Victorian government— the $49 billion investments in the last budget. A lot of investors have not known how to actually manage this, where they should be going, and this is a proposition put forward in an attempt to see if

BILLS 700 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 we can keep the rigour and the due diligence, have a coordinated strategy and streamline a result, because it is in everybody’s best interest to get that done. I just want to also mention that in the Big Housing Build spend Homes Victoria has been established to work right across government, industry and the social housing sector to deliver the record housing growth and to manage existing public housing, and this is really important as well. I know that the state district of Broadmeadows has been identified as a priority for that, and I would just like to use this opportunity to advocate that the Banksia Gardens area in particular is put into the top bracket of funding because it would be of significance to get this up and going where we need it most, where there has been a lot of community support for this to be in the first tranche of funding and redevelopment, and also from Hume City Council. So I would like to look at that and to see if we can get that to happen. I want to also acknowledge the minister for what he has done on heritage in this bill so that what happened at the Corkman cannot happen again. It is good to hear that the opposition supports heritage protection in banning the future use or development of sites for up to 10 years. This is a bill that brings a whole series of different initiatives that are really critical right here, right now. I commend the willingness of the government to listen and to move and to act, particularly at this most vital time for recovery from the pandemic and the recession. Mr McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:42): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. As mentioned by the member for Kew, there are many points in this bill that we agree with, but we do have some reservations, which I will talk about a little bit later. The bill makes several amendments to the Planning and Environment Act 1987. First of all, it will strengthen the local heritage protection in the act, and that will be done mainly through I suppose deterrents—or disincentives, for want of a better word—to hopefully stop or at least deter the unlawful demolition of buildings that have been given heritage protection under the planning scheme. And at the same time it will deter property owners or developers where those buildings have been allowed to fall into disrepair. The bill will also provide greater flexibility in relation to the validity of planning permits for the extractive industry and provide greater equity in funding precinct structure planning costs by enabling the VPA, the Victorian Planning Authority, to cost-recover structure planning costs from those who benefit from the value uplift of those structural plans. This will be achieved by enabling a planning scheme to regulate or prohibit the development of land on which a heritage building has been unlawfully demolished, partly demolished or allowed to fall into disrepair. It will detail that a planning scheme may require a permit for the development of land and that it must not be granted unless the development is either for or includes the reconstruction, reinstatement or repair of the heritage building that is or was on the land. As far as I am concerned, protecting and preserving our history, particularly in buildings and heritage listing, is very important for future generations. However, included will be new provisions that will enable the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, to declare that the land must not be used or developed except as specified in the order for up to 10 years in the event that the landowner was convicted of an offence related to the unlawful demolition of a heritage building. Amongst all of this there are also the new measures to allow for greater use of digital and online technology, which can assist particularly where documents are made available online. A responsible authority is expected to facilitate in-person inspections upon request. There are new provisions to ensure that individuals are afforded appropriate privacy protections where the requirements are met by online publication. Provisions will be clarified to reduce the risk to government of compensation claims by owners of land flagged for future public purpose. It allows for the planning authority to publish notices and reasons for decisions to abandon an amendment within 10 business days of notifying the minister of the decision.

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 701

Clearly this legislation, as the member for Kew pointed out before, has been instigated through the illegal demolition of the Corkman hotel, which has certainly forced the government’s hand into the planning reforms involving heritage properties. There are measures in this bill that will ensure that developers no longer benefit or profit from unlawfully demolishing heritage buildings, and that was well presented by the member for Kew. I think that is a good thing, because the Corkman fiasco is now a stain on the Victorian planning department through what has happened in that process. The bill also includes a new definition of ‘heritage building’, to mean:

a building which is a place, or forms part of a place, that has been given heritage protection under a planning scheme … We need to see how this rolls out. I am not sure I am 100 per cent sold on this at this stage. In the Ovens Valley electorate the Mount Buffalo Chalet, or Mount Buffalo itself, could fall into this category. I know locals are desperate to progress with further developments of the Mount Buffalo Chalet in the not-too-distant future. This legislation is broad enough that it might allow consequences that are not fully exposed yet. As I said earlier in my contribution, whilst I support the above parts of the bill, there are still some areas of concern. These concerns stem from the removal of compensation for land for future public use, especially considering the current green wedge consultation paper, and the overburdening of landowners in the uplift of value they enjoy or in planning by enabling the Victorian Planning Authority to recover costs. I think we need clarification so that the result is more equitable for landowners and the VPA is encouraged to continue to streamline the precinct structure planning, the PSP. Further clarification is required on the level of transparency regarding how the proposed fees will be calculated, collected and utilised, because another new tax seems to be headed our way. This no longer surprises me under this government; somebody must foot the bill for the waste and mismanagement that goes on. I also have concerns around clause 4. This refers to heritage buildings falling into disrepair, but it is potentially subjective and therefore ambiguous and I think it needs to be more clearly defined. In summary, I fully support the reasoned amendment of the member for Kew to essentially remove what appears to be a new tax. However, I welcome the added protection for heritage buildings. Landowners should be adequately compensated for changes to planning schemes that adversely affect the value of their land with respect to future land use, and of course landowners should not be subjected to a tax on PSPs through a cost recovery contribution, which as I have said a couple of times today appears to establish a new tax. I do hope the government will consider the modest changes that the member for Kew has put forward and has called for. These would provide a better outcome for this bill and for all Victorians in the future. Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (16:48): I rise to make a contribution around this bill. I have been listening very closely to the contributions of the member for Kew and the member for Ovens Valley, and I do get the sense that there are some crocodile tears being shed in this chamber because there seems to be a lot of noise about the fact we need to be tougher on developers. They of course say that in relation to one matter, but on the other hand they are quite simply saying, ‘Well, why would we allow a developer to make a contribution to a precinct structure plan? That is just a new tax’. What a load of bunkum. It is entirely appropriate for the state government to seek to recover those costs attached to precinct structure planning, because the net result of a precinct structure plan, for those following along at home, is a massive valuation uplift in the land—a massive valuation uplift. So it is surely appropriate then that the work that goes into setting the framework for that massive valuation uplift has a cost recovery—and note even the members opposite use the phrase ‘a cost recovery’ not ‘a tax’—whereby the developer makes a contribution. Much has been made, particularly by the member for Kew, about the circumstances surrounding the demolition of the Corkman hotel. It was an absolutely disgusting act by those developers, and they

BILLS 702 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 have been dealt with, I think, very firmly by the law as it stood at the time. What the member for Kew failed to address is just how he proposes to retrospectively change those circumstances, because it is pretty easy to come into this place and say, ‘Oh, it shouldn’t have happened’. None of us would have liked to see that happen. It should not have happened, absolutely, but how do you actually address those matters in the context of a bill with retrospective effect? That is the point. It is extremely difficult to do that with any efficacy, extremely difficult to actually allow a historical set of circumstances to be dealt with by a bill now and to then have the effect of the bill apply with pure retrospectivity to that set of circumstances. It is extremely difficult to do. Had we known that this was coming, should the law have looked different? Yes, perhaps, but this bill is in fact the response to those circumstances. It is a response that makes sure that these things do not happen again. They should never have happened. Those blokes—dishonest to the core—set about in a manic way trying to profit from, frankly, a gap in the law, something that sat on the statute books for a pretty long time, and we perhaps all have to bear some responsibility for that. But the reality is the loophole was there; they sought to exploit it. They were advised by me to do the right thing—namely, apologise and rebuild the thing. They took that advice for about 10 minutes and then went back to their dishonest ways, and shame on them for doing so. But it is so important that we understand that there are rules regarding the compulsory acquisition of property in Victoria which simply make it impossible to do as the member for Kew has suggested in the public domain. You cannot just run around and say, ‘Well, I’m going to compulsorily acquire that for $1’. It is simply not how it works. The legislative framework is very, very difficult to wrap around that particular circumstance because it covers all manner of acquisitions—acquisitions for things like major infrastructure projects, which are a hugely important part of this government’s agenda; acquisitions for things like road widening and the provision of utilities and infrastructure. All of these things are important. You need to have a compulsory acquisitions framework in place. Unlike the United States, we do not have the equivalent of eminent domain in Australia. I think that is a very, very good thing. We do not effectively have a privately controlled compulsory acquisition regime. It is only publicly controlled. But in the context of publicly controlled acquisitions, I am sure those opposite would agree on first principles, that you ought not be able to acquire for anything less than something like fair market value or highest and best use depending on the circumstances. Now, the circumstances here are difficult because through their criminal actions they have arbitrarily uplifted the value of the land, but the minister’s response was absolutely the right one. He went and got the orders, he put the caveats on the site. The matter came back before VCAT a number of times over the course of 2019. And ultimately when those blokes had determined that they were not even going to stand by their own court undertakings—not just their public undertakings—they were imprisoned, they have paid a quarter of a million in legal costs and been fined $150 000. They have felt the full force of the law as it stood at that time. The difficulty we have is applying retrospectivity to these matters. That is an extraordinarily challenging thing for any parliament to do. It happens a little bit in taxation matters, but in other matters it is very, very difficult for a parliament to come up with challenge-proof changes to the law that have retrospective effects. Were the member for Kew’s suggestion of compulsory acquisition to be taken up, that would actually crystallise the windfall gain that might be realised by those cowboys, and that would clearly not be in the public interest. Had we made that acquisition at that time, we might well have had to foot the bill for the cost of cleaning up the site, the remediation, removal of asbestos and the like. So rather than putting a cost onto the taxpayer, we have secured that order from VCAT which means that that remediation, that expense, that obligation falls to the owners. What it does not do is leave us exposed to having to acquire the property at highest and best use without those clean-up works having been done. To point to the specifics, the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 would apply, and that provides that fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of compensation payable on the assumption that the claimant held the interest in respect of which the offer is made—namely, that anyone claiming

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 703 for having had their land compulsory acquired is entitled to fair and reasonable compensation and the valuation gets carried out by the valuer-general. Now, the member for Kew was pretty quick to characterise this as being a matter in the hands of the Minister for Planning. Quite obviously, quite intentionally, there is rigour in the system. There is independence built into the system so that ministers cannot arbitrarily interfere with valuation processes. There is just no notion that what the member for Kew was putting into the public domain is in any way achievable in the real world, the world that is bound by in fact the rule of law. To suggest anything otherwise is just simply a nonsense. The objection to this bill around the contribution of what is, in many cases, large urban fringe allotments to precinct structure planning is an objection that serves only to fatten the pockets of the developers. That is the only reasonable purpose you could have for that objection. The reality is that the developers want precinct structure plans brought forward because they want to crystallise their gains now, not tomorrow, not in 10 years. Property development is a game that is in many respects ruled by the time value of money and holding costs, and all they are seeking to do is bring forward PSPs so that land that is perhaps now farmland or industrial land might get rezoned to a higher and better use, residential land. To suggest that we ought not recover that cost from the beneficiaries of the PSP is a complete nonsense. The windfall gains can be spectacular in this universe. We have seen it time and time again in Melbourne over the journey, and governments of both stripes have at times got it wrong by not trying to capture that value and by not making sure that we do everything we can to protect the public interest in the planning process and not just simply by ministerial fiat or a flick of the pen confer gargantuan profits on individual landholders. It should absolutely be a goal of everyone in this place to share the benefits of the growth of the city, but also to share the expenses that come with the growth of the city, the need for infrastructure, the need for a Suburban Rail Loop, the need for regional rail infrastructure, the need for public transport connections, new schools and new hospitals—the things that we on this side of the chamber are so very, very focused on. I have confined my comments to the first part of this bill, but I am pleased to say it is a bill that does so much more than the matters which I have discussed today. I remain bemused by the strategy deployed by those opposite to say, ‘Well, Labor’s soft on developers, but by the way we shouldn’t be asking developers to make a contribution from the large windfall gains they enjoy on their land’. I look forward to speakers following having a crack at explaining that somewhat confusing conundrum, and I do commend the bill to the house. Mr MORRIS (Mornington) (16:58): If there was one member I thought I would not be following on this bill, it was the member for Burwood, but there you go, these things happen. This bill proposes significant changes to the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It is only one bill, but the changes range across a number of areas, and of course the Planning and Environment Act is a complex act to start with. It is 34 years old. It has been changed 146 times—the current version is 146. It has been changed again and again, and it is almost unrecognisable from the original legislation. This bill with its 74 clauses makes further significant changes. It is interesting that the member for Broadmeadows and the member for Burwood both spent a lot of time talking about the heritage aspects of the bill—and the member for Burwood, to be fair, did talk about a number of other aspects too. But this bill is not just about the heritage aspects, it is about compensation for the acquisition of private land, rezoning and the failure to impose public acquisition overlays. It is about wholesale changes to access to information and moving the whole process online. It is about significant changes to the way planning panels operate. It is about significant changes to the way councils respond to the planning reports. As has been said, there are some significant changes also to the funding, or the access to funds, for the Victorian Planning Authority. There are significant changes to the way the Parliament deals with changes to green wedge issues. As we all know, there are some changes that need to be brought to the Parliament. This bill makes significant changes to those powers. And perhaps most interestingly of all—and there has been no comment on it as far as I know from the government in any way—there are significant enhancements to the power of the Minister for Planning when it comes to the amendment process.

BILLS 704 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Now, what has the commentary been from the minister around the bill? When you look at the one and only media release that was put out on 2 February, just before the bill was introduced, the headline, not surprisingly, is ‘Protecting our heritage from demolition’. In this release we have got seven paragraphs and another three paragraphs of quotes around heritage protection. There is one solitary sentence that talks about the rest of the bill:

The Bill will also improve the efficiency and operation of Victoria’s planning system, in relation to the publication of notices, the inspection of documents and for panel hearings. There is nothing about the compensation aspects. There is nothing about the funding for the Victorian Planning Authority. There is nothing about green wedge, and the government knows damn well that green wedge issues are top of mind for those affected communities and for most of Melbourne. Most of Melbourne has a stake in protecting the green wedges around the city, but there is no comment there at all and no comment with regard to the changes to the powers of the minister. You do wonder why. I will not go any further than that, but you do wonder why the government is being so silent on these far-reaching changes to the Planning and Environment Act. Now, the changes to the Heritage Act 2017 have been well canvassed. The commentary has revolved around the Corkman atrocity—you cannot put it any simpler than that. Let us not kid ourselves that we cannot legislate or could not have legislated to protect that property. Of course we could have. We have seen house after house after house protected by local heritage provisions knocked over. This has been going on for two decades—and more intensely for the last decade with the significant uplift in property values. We have known this was going to happen, it was inevitable and it should not have happened. I am pleased though that these provisions are potentially going into the bill, and they are worthy of support. With regard to the compensation aspects, it is of course entirely appropriate that governments have the capacity to acquire land, but landholders need to be adequately recompensed. And if a rezoning occurs and they lose value, there is a value drop in the land or they want to move on and sell that land, they should not suffer from a zoning decision. They should not suffer from public purposes being ascribed to that land which was previously entirely private. That is the point we are making here. No-one is saying you should not do it, but it needs to be a fair process for the landholder and a fair process for the state, and I am not sure that this bill gets it right. The bill makes some administrative changes around the publication of notices and inspection of documents, and they are all welcome. It moves the process online, and to a certain extent that probably should have been done long ago. COVID has hastened that, of course. There are also changes to arrangements for panel hearings, allowing them to be conducted by video link. Again, I do not think there is any contention about that; it simply streamlines the process and makes it more accessible as well. There are changes around the speed with which councils must deal with panel reports. Again, this is also welcome. But part 5 makes what are referred to as ‘miscellaneous amendments’. Now, I understand that ‘miscellaneous’ means a number of things, but often it is taken to mean matters of smaller importance, matters of a minor nature, and that is not what is in this part 5. Permits on land for extractive industries will be extended post the expiration of use effectively from two years to 10 with very little justification. No other use has that sort of 10-year limit. The permit lapses after two. If you want to use the land again, you can get a permit again. You go through the process. This extends it to 10, again without justification. It is not a trivial matter. Part 5 removes references to municipal strategic statements. Okay, they are redundant at the moment, but where is the strategy going to come from? It is not going to come locally, as it has done in the past; it is going to come from the department, it is going to come from the minister. Division 3 of part 5 is, again, not trivial. This is the Victorian Planning Authority aspect, clauses 62, 63 and 64. The minister says in his second-reading speech:

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 705

The Bill also introduces amendments to establish a transparent and equitable funding system for structure planning costs whereby all landowners who benefit from the Precinct Structure Planning (PSP) approval contribute to the costs. Nonsense. That is not what this bill does. It does not go within a bull’s roar of doing that. Have a look at clauses 62, 63 and 64. Clauses 62 and 63 simply remove the prohibition on the Victorian Planning Authority recovering costs. That is all it does. It does not put in place a structure. And in the case of clause 64 there is a comparable change. It does not do what the minister suggests, it does not do what the explanatory memorandum suggests and it does not do what the public commentary or the commentary in this debate has suggested so far. It does not achieve that. That is our objection to it. Also there are issues with two further clauses as far as I am concerned—with clauses 67 and 69. Clause 67 is a significant expansion of the powers of the minister. It will enable him to provide directions when it comes to the preparation of a planning scheme amendment—in other words, to completely override anything a local council may wish to do. That is a significant expansion of the powers of the minister and it is being done completely under the radar with no public comment, and I am sure most councils have not caught up with that. That needs to be reconsidered. The final point relates to the green wedge provisions. Again, we have had no explanation why. We have had nothing from the minister. We have had no public commentary. It may be legitimate; we simply do not know. So, in summary, there are some good elements to this bill but there are some real shockers too, and it needs to be reconsidered. Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (17:08): It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on the proposed Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. One of the most exciting things that has happened to me is becoming the member for Hawthorn, and I am hoping that I will have many, many, many more years in Hawthorn to enjoy what that electorate has to offer and the general interest in Hawthorn that I have noticed since coming into this house. Let me just say this though: one of the issues of Hawthorn is this very thing about heritage listing. I worry about people who try and simplify it. It is not just a simple matter, I do not think. You hear of these little fights between council heavies and government heavies, for example. It is not just a simple matter of staking claims or counterclaims or whatever. Nor is it a case of the developers being the goodies or the baddies and so on. It is actually more complex than that. I have come across in Hawthorn a number of situations where it has seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable to have overlays, whether it has been in Glenferrie Road or Burke Road or other parts of this wonderful electorate of Hawthorn, and where there has been great justification for having overlays of various kinds on particular properties. On the other hand I have also seen people who have suffered by an inconsistent approach of by-laws and so on so that they have actually lost very heavily in a particular transaction either for or against the heritage nature of a particular property. I do not think we can simplify it. I certainly do not think much of the amendment offered by the member for Kew. He is my neighbour next door and should know better. It is a simplification of the issues, and like all simplified issues very often they just create a whole lot of other ones. It is a bit like when you shine a light somewhere, you create a shadow somewhere else. That is how I would see that particular amendment. I am just delighted to see in Hawthorn the heritage that is there, but I am also challenged in Hawthorn by the complexity around this issue of heritage listings. The bill will improve this. You see, the point is the bill is offering further advances. It is not going to suddenly create something that is going to work absolutely perfectly for the next century. Only a fool would think that. Basically it is another step forward, and that is how it has got to be seen. It needs to be critically examined along the way. It will improve on Victoria’s already impressive planning framework, rightly hailed by the Minister for Planning and Minister for Housing as the best in the country. The intended amendments will strengthen the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by removing unnecessary delays and adapting to the challenging needs of the community. These measures will see us respond effectively to the challenges of COVID-19 and allow us to immediately inject the economy with a good dose of new jobs and opportunities to drive our economy.

BILLS 706 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

But greater efficiency does not mean less protection. That is why the Heritage Act 2017 will be updated to ensure Victoria can continue to protect its heritage. These amendments are needed to safeguard the architectural heritage that defines Victoria and its history, enabling us to build effectively and appropriately for the future, and nowhere else is this so obvious than in the electorate of Hawthorn. Under the current rules there are insufficient protections to guard against irresponsible behaviour that can damage iconic and treasured landmarks in the community. The American author Steve Berry once said:

A concerted effort to preserve our heritage is a vital link to our cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational and economic legacies—all of the things that quite literally make us who we are. Protecting our heritage is of vital importance. The tragic incident of the Corkman pub reminds us there are rogue developers who do not value this heritage in the same way as the rest of the community and they will not automatically act in our interest—no news there. The Corkman pub is the case often cited, but this example is emblematic of a situation to which many other iconic buildings around Melbourne and Victoria could be vulnerable. The Corkman pub, formerly known as the Carlton Inn hotel, was built around 1858, the same time as some of the iconic buildings of the University of Melbourne were constructed, along with many other buildings around Victoria. The decision to demolish it over a weekend in 2016 was staggering in its arrogance, and as we have seen in the press over the last few years, the community was rightly outraged. The event occurred due to the fact that our current enforcement mechanisms are insufficient to deter cowboy developers from doing the wrong thing. The maximum penalties presently stand at $198 000. It might sound like a substantial sum, but it can often be dwarfed by the potential profit the developer will receive when the land is developed. Even if the developer has been successfully prosecuted for wrongful behaviour and been issued with the maximum penalty, a planning permit application can still proceed to further develop the land. Instead of discouraging unlawful behaviour, these rules may in fact be incentivising this appalling conduct. In 2017 the government justifiably introduced legislation which made it an indictable offence for a builder or person managing building work to knowingly carry out works without a permit or in contravention of the Building Act 1993, the regulations or their permit. We now seek to strengthen those measures by adding further disincentives. This bill proposes to regulate or prohibit the development of land on which a heritage building has been unlawfully demolished, partly demolished or allowed to fall into disrepair. If some form of illegal demolition has occurred, this bill ensures that a permit for the development of the land will only be provided if the new development includes the reconstruction, reinstatement or repair of the heritage building as it once was. There are also provisions to block development of the land for up to 10 years if the owners have been charged with unlawful demolition. This order will run with the land to prevent this stipulation being undermined by the sale of the land to another person. Heritage organisations, including the National Trust, and councils have welcomed the introduction of these new protections for our heritage. This bill is an effective response as it will deter the wrongful demolition of heritage buildings and will prevent landowners and developers from simply including monetary penalties into the cost of their developments, which are then therefore passed on to you know who. This bill also addresses other innovations and measures to streamline the planning processes for future projects. Adapting to a new normal, a COVID normal, is vital not only for recovery from this pandemic but also for areas exposed for improvement in the current system. In a world where physical distancing measures are necessary, requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that certain documents be made physically available simply does not afford the planning system the flexibility it needs. Over the past year we have all found new ways of doing things, and these amendments will serve us not only through the pandemic but also well into the future, I am proud to say. This bill recognises that key amendments are needed to modernise the notice, publication and inspection of document requirements by enabling greater use of online and digital technology. Requirements to make documents available for inspection can now be complied with in two ways: by either publishing the documents on an internet site maintained by the entity or inspecting the documents in person at the

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 707 entity’s offices during business hours. It will also allow Planning Panels Victoria to conduct hearings by audio or audiovisual link as well as in person. These provisions will make it cheaper for all stakeholders and simpler to conduct small hearings with one or two submitters in rural and regional Victoria. Reducing hearing delays is vital as part of our economic recovery and this will also be useful during future emergency situations like bushfires. This bill will enable Victoria to drive growth and create jobs by streamlining processes and minimising delays whilst protecting the architectural heritage that Victorians cherish. I commend this bill to this house. Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (17:18): In my electorate of Caulfield there is probably no major issue that concerns residents more than appropriate development. I particularly refer to the likes of Elsternwick, Glen Huntly and Ormond. This issue not only sends many of my constituents into complete disarray, but they live in uncertainty. They live in uncertainty about a beautiful home that has been sitting there for many years and that has the potential to have—and unfortunately in many instances has had—a wrecking ball go through it and be turned into apartments. We want to ensure that there is appropriate development and that there is the ability for people to one day purchase their own home. We know that there are more and more apartments going up in many inner-city seats like mine. But when we see these beautiful homes completely destroyed, there is no word that describes it other than that it is an absolute disgrace. It has taken far too long for this government to do anything when it comes to protecting these heritage homes. I refer the Parliament back to August 2019 and an ABC story with the headline: ‘They’re charming but are they worth saving? The battle to save Melbourne’s heritage homes’. This story shows a beautiful home in Seymour Road—that is, 55 Seymour Road, Elsternwick—that neighbour Sam Dugdale tried to save. She contacted me. She contacted a number of other members and councillors. She contacted the government, she contacted the Minister for Planning, and unfortunately from the government side there was a complete failure to act. This home had a wrecking ball put through the middle of it. In the story it says Sam mentioned:

“I was advised to put in an interim protection order, which I did,” she said. It was denied. Why? Because under Victoria’s heritage laws, individuals can only seek emergency protection for places or buildings worthy of state-level heritage protection. Only 2,600 sites across Victoria are considered … significant. This home, which was over 100 years old, was bowled over. I went with our Shadow Minister for Planning and Heritage, the member for Kew, and visited this home. We did whatever we could to make a representation to the government to save this home, but this home was destroyed—absolutely destroyed. It is just not good enough that these things happen, and Seymour Road is just one example of what has been happening. Selwyn Street has the old ABC site, which many of you would be familiar with—Countdown. On one corner next to the Rippon Lea gardens you have that Countdown building. At the moment the ABC are looking at trying to make some dough, sell that piece of land and ultimately convert that into cash for them and development for everybody else, leaving it all behind, potentially turning that into high-rise development, as if we do not have enough already in some of our electorates. And there are people who have been living in these suburbs where beautiful old heritage homes have been destroyed. Across the road in Selwyn Street Woolworths were in the middle of trying to initially bowl over the other ABC site there, and they had a plan to put 16 storeys up—16 storeys! We know residents in Elsternwick are in VCAT today about a building across the road that will be more high rise. These residents that should be worried about their families and doing all kinds of other things, enjoying life, are spending their time in VCAT trying to save their homes. They are trying to save their homes because this government does not care. They do not care. They say, ‘Just fill up these neighbourhoods with development. Just put skyscrapers in, and don’t worry about what that does to

BILLS 708 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 the amenity. Don’t worry about somebody’s neighbourhood. Don’t worry about someone’s backyard. Don’t worry about someone’s amenity’. The City of Glen Eira has the lowest amount of open space of any municipality in the state. We have just gone through a COVID lockdown of 111 days, and where do these kids go to use a park, to walk a dog? Not in a high-rise. They do not do that in a high-rise. It is all very well for members of the government that maybe in their electorates have nice backyards and properties and everything else that they live in. What about these people that are losing their backyards, are losing their amenity, are losing these hundred-year-old homes because they are not considered heritage because something was changed at one point down the track that does not give it value according to some report? We have got to do better than this. The government has had far too long to actually get off its backside and actually ensure that we start to protect our neighbourhoods, that we get balance. That is all our constituency wants—balance, sensible development. We are not saying there should be zero development. We are not saying, ‘Don’t do anything’. We just want a balance. We want the right mix. We want to ensure that homes like that beautiful home we saw that Sam and the constituency in Elsternwick fought so hard to try and keep can be kept. That is what we want. That is what we are asking for. That is what is needed. It is very, very simple. We have the ‘Save Elsternwick from the Towers’ group. That is a very, very big Facebook group. They are passing the hat around to fundraise to try and protect their neighbourhood. Save Glen Eira are another group that have been working right through the electorate to try and do what they can. In the time that we worked with Sam and we worked with others in Elsternwick and some of those suburbs we did end up getting the council to put in some interim changes, and the council at the City of Glen Eira have moved some citations in a number of properties, including St Clement’s Anglican Church in Glen Huntly Road, Hopetoun Gardens in Glen Huntly Road, the corner store in Hartington Street, Lumea, the 10th Caulfield Scout Hall, the duplex at 21–23 Nepean Highway, Edelstein Residence and a number of others. There are other citations here, but unfortunately what we are missing is to get an overall plan of sensible, appropriate development going forward and, as the member for Brighton quite rightly points out, a framework that we can operate under of certainty, of not waking up one day and realising, ‘Gee, what’s happening here, this home next door is about to be bulldozed’. That is not what we want. We do not want a situation where somebody has purchased into an area only to find the very next day or the very next week that there are plans to completely rip apart the neighbourhood, tear it down and put a high-rise next door. We know the government has a lot of plans in terms of value capture in different areas. We know in Ormond we had the situation of the sky tower next to the Ormond level crossing. That was paid for. It did not need value capture because our government actually paid for that level crossing removal, and we now have a platform that is waiting for some kind of development down the track. I finish my contribution by saying we need all the protection we can get. We would certainly support that going forward—ensuring that our neighbourhoods are protected, that residents are listened to. But it is very, very disappointing. I cannot think how many times I have come before the government, before the Minister for Planning, asking for an intervention, asking for some support, asking to ensure a neighbourhood, a community group, a constituent is listened to, but unfortunately they have been ignored and in many instances those houses have been lost. So I hope that we will see a change, we get certainty and we get plans that provide comfort for many of the residents in my electorate of Caulfield and the surrounds. The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Suleyman): Members, at this stage we will have a half-hour break for cleaning purposes. Sitting suspended 5.28 pm until 6.02 pm.

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 709

Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (18:02): It is a very great privilege to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. This is another very important piece of legislation before this house today. This is about strengthening local heritage protection through new provisions to prevent landowners from benefiting from the unlawful demolition of heritage buildings or allowing heritage buildings to fall into disrepair. There are a number of different parts to this bill, and some of the key amendments in the legislation, apart from strengthening those protections in the planning system for buildings of local heritage significance, are to allow Planning Panels Victoria to conduct hearings by audio link or audiovisual link as well as in person. This is really important particularly for people in regional Victoria, who often do not have the opportunity to participate in panel hearings as they may be held in Melbourne or elsewhere. This actually broadens the scope for Planning Panels Victoria to engage more people in regional Victoria. The other measure that I want to talk on is extending the expiry time of extractive industry permits for periods of inactivity from two years to 10 years. I think that is a really important measure also. The bill is also about the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and, importantly for Victoria, supporting economic recovery—an early economic recovery—and jobs growth. It will do this by modernising and improving the efficiency and operational effectiveness of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in line with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Better Regulation in her report Turning Best Practice into Common Practice and supported of course by the Building Victoria’s Recovery Taskforce. This has come about essentially as a consequence of the unlawful demolition of the Corkman hotel in 2016, which other members have referred to. Of course there may be a situation where Victoria’s planning enforcement system could potentially incentivise people to unlawfully demolish buildings of local heritage significance without a planning permit. This is about making sure that that can never happen again. I think the very significant media interest in the Corkman site has highlighted that there is still considerable outrage at the level of penalties that currently apply, and it is really important that the Planning and Environment Act is strengthened to deter and prevent people from obtaining a benefit from the unlawful demolition of heritage buildings. I am really privileged to represent an electorate that is covered in wonderful, beautiful heritage buildings, reminiscent of the gold rush, our Chinese heritage and Central Victoria more broadly in the goldfields region. But in my electorate, including Bendigo, Castlemaine and towns like Maldon—of course Australia’s first notable town, and in 2016 it was made the most significant heritage town in Victoria—these towns are littered, dotted, across the landscape with magnificent heritage buildings. I have been really fortunate to be able to be a participant in many upgrades to these beautiful buildings since I was elected in 2010. A lot of this has come about through our Living Heritage Grants Program, which I know the Minister for Planning is particularly passionate about, and he has visited my electorate on numerous occasions to announce those successful grant recipients. People who know Bendigo know that it has many beautiful heritage buildings and how important these are to our community. The beautiful Trades Hall building in Bendigo, which is one of the most significant and iconic trades hall buildings in Victoria, was a recipient of that Living Heritage Victoria grant to replace the roof of that building, which they were most grateful to receive. Another beautiful building, which many people do not actually know about, is the Bendigo Cemeteries Trust mortuary chapel. Now, the mortuary chapel was in an enormous amount of disrepair and was actually closed, so it could not be utilised by the community, but they received a grant. It was only $200 000, which does not sound like a lot of money, but to that particular building it was very significant. Back in 2016 the mortuary chapel’s exterior and interior were conserved and repaired, and that allowed this beautiful multidimensional chapel to once again be available for weddings, music recitals, receptions, and its original function of course as a mortuary chapel. These grants are really important because they highlight how important these heritage landmarks across my electorate are to our community and enable continued community use irrespective of what that use might be.

BILLS 710 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

A few years ago I was really pleased to make an announcement. Many people might not know this, but in Castlemaine also there are many, many beautiful heritage buildings. Buda Historic Home and Garden in Castlemaine is one of the most iconic, if not the iconic, home residences that is still available for public access and is one of the oldest buildings in Castlemaine. That garden was the original garden that was planted by the family that built Buda way back in the 1800s, and we were able to give them some funding to support little things like drainage works and repair to the footpaths around the garden as well. That was a $50 000 grant to make sure that that heritage garden as well as the building, because they have received more grant since then, remain accessible to the public. It is becoming an increasingly popular tourist destination, Buda Historic Home and Garden. Many people here might have had the pleasure of visiting the Theatre Royal in Castlemaine, one of the most iconic buildings in Castlemaine. Ms Thomas interjected. Ms EDWARDS: Yes indeed. I have many iconic heritage buildings across the electorate. Castlemaine of course is renowned for its heritage buildings and landscapes. We want to make sure that they are protected and maintained, and these repairs and upgrades ensure that these treasured icons will remain part of not just Castlemaine’s identity for many decades to come but of Victoria’s identity for many decades to come. The Theatre Royal was built in 1854, originally a wooden structure with canvas walls, a roof and eucalyptus branches strapped to upright poles for decoration, and of course the theatre burnt down six months after construction. Nevertheless, the reiterations of the Theatre Royal over the years saw it rebuilt and unfortunately destroyed again by fire, but then rebuilt again. In 1919 it was one of the first picture palaces in Australia, and by the end of World War II the Theatre Royal was playing movies to more than 4500 people every week. These are just some of the beautiful buildings that I have the pleasure of visiting regularly, and the people who look after them are my constituents of course. Heritage is important in many ways. It is not just about buildings, it is also about landscapes, but I probably do not have enough time to speak about the landscapes that surround the beautiful goldfields region of Bendigo West. These heritage sites and buildings have a very positive influence on many aspects of the way a community develops. It is about regeneration and it can be about housing, education, economic growth and community engagement, and these are all examples of ways in which heritage can make a positive contribution to our community life. The historic environment, as we know, is a proven source of benefit to our local economies, particularly through tourism, and no more so than in the beautiful heritage town of Maldon, which is currently undergoing a transformation through the revitalisation project. Undergrounding of the powerlines has commenced and is ongoing, thanks to a wonderful grant from Regional— Ms Thomas: Sounds like Regional Development Victoria. Ms EDWARDS: Yes, Regional Development Victoria. It is good to see the Minister for Regional Development at the table. This project has been some 30 years in the making, and the second stage of that project is to restore and bring back to life the beautiful heritage buildings along the Maldon main streetscape. People are very proud of their local history, but we do not always express how much we value a place until it is threatened. I think the instance of the Corkman hotel is a good example of that, and this legislation is about turning that around and making sure that all of our heritage buildings are protected. Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (18:12): I rise to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. Your home is your castle, and your suburb is your village. Like a village, every suburb is unique—unique because of the way it has developed its own natural environment and, most importantly, unique because of the people living in it. Each element is part of the melting pot of a community’s individual character. We should support the preservation of community character. In

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 711 fact we should support what is best about our livability wholeheartedly. Our laws should act to preserve what is best about our suburbs. That is not to say that change should not happen or that we should be frozen in time. Change is inevitable, whether it be through modernisation of existing homes or ensuring that our city has the capacity to meet a growing population through new homes. Change from a planning perspective is always with us. Our planning laws should be balanced—balancing modernisation and growth at one end of the spectrum with the protection of heritage and community character at the other. Our existing planning laws are far from achieving that. Victorians know that this state government is a champion of densification. This government has no respect for heritage or community character, and this bill is more of the same—imbalanced and failing to fix the real problem. It is not much more than an insipid ministerial knee jerk aimed at addressing the humiliating public slap the minister received by a rogue developer—and what a public slap it was. The hairy-chested minister let out a roar, but we found he has little more than a mouse’s squeak. On our side of the chamber we welcome genuine heritage protections. This bill adds little more than a fig leaf to the minister, a minister who has been shown to be wearing no clothes. This government has avoided putting in place a proper heritage framework. As National Trust of Australia (Victoria) chief executive Simon Ambrose has said:

This problem is bigger than just one house … In many areas across Melbourne, heritage protections have not kept pace with development and community expectations. And further, acknowledging that a legislative black hole exists, the chief executive said:

The state government needs to step in and provide real support. We know there is no real support from this government for heritage. We are seeing that play out across Melbourne’s suburbs. Many of us in this place have seen valuable cultural buildings meet the wrecking ball. It is not only planning watchers who know this government has little regard for heritage, the community knows it too. What is most sad is that our local communities are forced to be the real guards of heritage. In the absence of real protections our neighbours are now the guardians. As Graham Robson of Hampton put it:

… our homes really are our castles and our backyards are our neighbourhoods. This is about neighbourhood character as much as it is about heritage and we need to protect both. Our neighbours are now the guardians in a system that forces the community to understand a complex, flawed planning law system. It necessitates that residents act as community campaigners against inappropriate proposals and burdens the community guardians to spend years of their time on each application—years of their time—going through the planning process for each inappropriate proposed site. But most of all, our laws have been purposefully designed to be impotent, and as a result our system pits neighbour against neighbour. In 2019 we saw that in Grosvenor Street, Brighton, where over 1000 residents called for the heritage protection of a historic Tudor-style home designed by Home Beautiful journalist Esme Johnson in 1930. Local heritage activists called for protection on the basis of more recognition being needed for women on the Victorian Heritage Register, but for the owning family, who had saved for years to purchase the property, the fight was heartbreaking. As the owner said:

Most citizens want a fair system so they can purchase property with certainty—that’s what we thought we did. We understand the value of heritage (but) to lobby to protect a property after an owner has invested in it is fundamentally unfair. And further, heritage is impacting families financially and emotionally. In Grosvenor Street, like many streets, heritage has not been applied evenly, partly because councils have differing approaches to heritage applications, which are in part based on an opt-in approach. Councils are understandably hesitant to retrospectively overlay heritage. That is where our laws fail—failure in properly protecting heritage that is again highlighted by this bill. A fulsome framework is what we need, a fulsome

BILLS 712 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 framework that is simple. As Felicity Watson, the executive manager of advocacy at the National Trust of Australia, says:

When looking at the protection of properties you need to consider the broader community benefit and not just the impacts on the individual homeowner. The Hampton community has seen that firsthand in Service Street, a proposed development where quite genuinely thousands of residents have spoken out. Developers are targeting a quiet, leafy street filled with heritage homes, proposing to demolish four significant homes and construct 36 apartments. Again, the current planning overlay was inadequate. Disappointingly for Hampton, the Labor minister has turned his back on the street. Service Street knows that if this development goes ahead, it will set a precedent and the waiting game will begin, where residents watch their neighbours sell out to developers. The member for Sandringham and I recently met with the community in Hampton to hear their concerns firsthand, and one of the common threads that the community put to us was they should not be expected to be planning experts. They should not be expected to be the guardians of heritage or of the amenity of their street. But we know that the law fails them, and we know that the government has no interest and is not interested in properly and adequately protecting the heritage of our communities. Why should residents be forced to be the guardians? Why should neighbourhood associations like the Hampton Neighbourhood Association be forced into existence to represent hundreds—or a thousand in that case—of local residents in Hampton and be their voice each time a proposal is put forward that is out of character with the community? In Hampton’s case we know the government set out the neon lights and targeted Hampton for overdevelopment. That organisation, which does wonderful work, incredible work, has been forced into existence by a government that has no interest in protecting the heritage or planning amenity of our community. Our suburbs are our villages. We should have laws that preserve heritage and community character. We do not. This bill is another Labor failure in a long line of planning failures by this government. Only the Liberal Party will protect your amenity and only the Liberal Party will protect your suburb. Ms HALL (Footscray) (18:21): I am very pleased to make a contribution to this important bill, and I am pleased to follow the member for Brighton because it gives me an opportunity to highlight some of the contrasts between attitudes on that side of the chamber and this side of the chamber towards our suburbs and our villages. The member for Brighton rightfully spoke about the lovely leafy streets in his electorate. Well, I would like to tell a little bit of a story about our greatest environmental asset, which is the Maribyrnong River. It is the front door to Footscray and it is our greatest asset, but in 2012 a rule was applied—one rule for the Yarra River and one rule for the Maribyrnong River—by the member for Bulleen in his capacity as planning minister, and what he did to Footscray was an absolute disgrace. We are still paying the price for that. We still have unpaved roads. We are trying to retrofit parks into a precinct that is pretty small. The Joseph Road precinct in Footscray is bounded by Hopkins Street, which of course becomes Footscray’s main road of Barkly Street; Maribyrnong River; and the train line. It is not a large area, and next to it we have the beautiful Heavenly Queen Temple. The Maribyrnong River has gone through a very long period of renewal. From the Footscray Community Arts Centre down to Footscray Park and the temple there has been lots of work from residents to beautify that part of our community. When the member for Bulleen was the Minister for Planning he approved dwellings to accommodate 7000 people of up to 32 storeys in Footscray. One of the most outrageous things about that development was not only that the council opposed it but that the chief government architect urged the government not to proceed with it because of the impact on amenity. The small primary school across the road, St Monica’s, begged the government not to proceed because it was going to overshadow the playground during lunchtime. Anyway, it was approved despite all of the opposition from the community. So now we have 7000 apartments on the way. Many of the apartment buildings have taken years to progress. The one on Hopkins Street, which is an enormous building with no setback, still has not been finished. This was approved in 2012. It has had a horrible impact on my community.

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 713

I think the most offensive thing of all with the Joseph Road precinct was that these were approved without developer contributions being required. The developers did not pay their fair share. It is only now that we have the planning minister that we have, who is retrofitting the obligations of the developers to pay their fair share, that we actually have a paved road going into this development. In 2019 one of the property developers in that precinct took the minister to the Supreme Court after he approved a planning amendment requiring the levies imposed on the developer’s project to increase from a measly $400 000 to a more respectable $3 million, given the size of these developments, which are gross overdevelopments for this part of Footscray. That damage cannot be undone. These buildings are always going to overshadow the primary school. They are always going to cause amenity impacts on the Maribyrnong River. They are always going to cause amenity impacts on the temple. But there is one rule, this idea that a modest apartment development in Caulfield or in Brighton or in Hampton is somehow this community outrage—and it may well be—but when my community in Footscray, the chief government architect, the council and everyone were appealing for the minister to listen, he did not. And we are still paying the price because he was the developer’s best friend. He was Mr Skyscraper, and that was okay for Footscray; it could all happen in Footscray—these huge developments. It was described in the Age as a forest of skyscrapers. Mr Newbury: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I think there has been wideranging debate, but we are certainly straying into the personal and a personal attack. Ms Thomas: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member on her feet is being extremely relevant to the bill, and I suggest that you decide there is no point of order. Ms Staley: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, the point of order was not in relation to relevance to the bill. The point of order was in relation to attacking a member of the Parliament, which is not allowed under the standing orders. The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Carbines): I do not think at this point—and I have been listening intently to the member for Footscray—that there has been a personal attack on any particular member at this time, but I will continue to listen closely to the member. I am sure for the smooth running of the house that as long as members stick to their contributions and the bill, then while it is a chamber of debate we will continue to progress matters. I will not uphold the point of order at this time. Ms HALL: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I am pleased to continue. I just wanted to tell that story about this tale of two cities and what is acceptable in the western suburbs or in the northern suburbs and what is deemed to be acceptable in terms of modest urban development and infill in the eastern suburbs, which I am not opposed to. I just want to see high-quality developments in our communities. This is just one reform introduced by this minister to improve the planning system, including reforms that he introduced that relate to built form that I am very proud of, relating to internal and external design standards, which are very important for the livability of communities, as the member for Brighton was commenting on. The heritage impacts of this bill are very important, and Footscray is a community with a very rich heritage. Just down the street from Hopkins Street, where this massive development has taken place and was approved by the member for Bulleen, we have the beautiful heritage precinct of Barkly Street. The member mentioned Felicity Watson; she is one of my local constituents—I am very proud to have her in Footscray—and she is very passionate about the heritage in our community. I would also like to recognise the Footscray Historical Society, who do a power of work in our community to document and advocate for the protection of heritage buildings. I should also note heritage protection is also a task for councils. We should not be requiring the planning minister to be doing the work that councils should be doing through heritage assessments and heritage studies, which should be regularly conducted in each municipality. But in this instance I think what we were all so appalled about with the Corkman hotel as an example—and there are also plenty of other examples where people just let heritage buildings go into a state of disrepair—is that it was so

BILLS 714 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 disrespectful to us as Melburnians and what we value and what we protect. I just wanted to put on the record that our heritage in Footscray is just as important as everyone else’s heritage. I am very proud of the work that this minister is doing in this space, creating places for people and public housing and social housing—things that I will always fight for in my community—but also making sure that we have livable communities and we can embrace the old and the new. I commend this bill to the house. Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (18:31): I rise to also speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. Obviously this is a subject that is very close to my heart because the reforms in this bill have been sparked by one of the most brazen things that I have ever seen a developer do— and it happened in my electorate—which was to illegally demolish the beautiful Carlton Inn, also known as the Corkman. It is in the wonderful suburb of Carlton, and this beautiful heritage building was much loved by the local community. I myself as a student used to go there to watch talented local musicians participate in Irish music sessions. It was a much-loved tradition and just a beautiful, beautiful part of our suburb. So of course the community was rightfully outraged when it was illegally demolished, and not only that, but then the developers repeatedly showed contempt for the planning process and for the law. They knocked down the pub with no demolition order. They had no planning permit for any building to replace the pub. After being issued with a stop-work order by the City of Melbourne, they then returned the following day to finish off the demolition, and they did not even bother showing up to face the music at VCAT. While this was one of the most blatant and brazen examples of developers playing by their own rules and not giving a toss about the community, it is unfortunately far from the only one. The Corkman developers have been dubbed in the media and by the minister as ‘cowboy’ developers, but we do know that exploiting loopholes in the system or simply outright breaking the law is pretty par for the course for some developers in Melbourne. Unfortunately our planning system and successive governments have just let them get away with it. Four years ago I stood in this place to comment on another bill, the Heritage Bill 2016, which was another piece of legislation that was brought about by this illegal demolition of the Corkman. At the time I noted the harsher penalties that were being introduced for demolishing heritage-listed buildings. They would not actually capture buildings like the Corkman because these were buildings that had local heritage protection but were not actually listed on the state heritage register. While there are fines for doing the wrong thing, there is nothing stopping someone from illegally demolishing a building and then subsequently securing a permit for development. It means that developers are in the habit of just factoring this cost of a fine into their budgets, into their business models, as a standard cost of doing business. They know they can get a permit later on. Often a fine is actually much less than the value that they get from developing that land, so there is no incentive to do the right thing. There is no incentive to follow the rules to protect the character of our city. Instead in fact the opposite is true— the lack of penalties means that developers are actually encouraged to illegally destroy heritage buildings to make way for their own lucrative projects like big apartment buildings or skyscrapers. So I am really pleased to see that the government is committing to strengthening our heritage protections in this bill that comes before us today. We know that developers are very good at finding loopholes in the planning system and exploiting them for their own benefit, and the changes in this bill, as I understand it, aim to tighten those loopholes. Developers will now be prevented from developing land where a heritage building was either destroyed or abandoned, and permits for development can only be issued to rebuild or repair a heritage building. There will also be new orders that land cannot be used for a period of up to 10 years if a developer has been convicted of illegally demolishing a heritage building on the site. It is also really good to see that the changes capture instances both where a building is demolished outright but also where a building is left to rot or degrade to the point that it cannot be repaired. We know that it is also common for developers to simply let a heritage building or heritage property just rot away or degrade until it is in such disrepair that there is no choice but to demolish it—to the point where it is beyond repair.

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 715

We have let developers run rampant in our city for too long. I hope the changes in this bill will rein in these practices, stop developers from doing the wrong thing so frequently and prevent losses like the Corkman pub from happening again. The Corkman is of course, as I mentioned, just one entry in a long list of precious heritage buildings in Melbourne that have been lost to greed. The Palace Theatre has been gutted to make way for a hotel—a campaign that I was very involved in. I still have a little tile that was sent to me by community members who were very passionately and ardently trying to protect the Palace Theatre or the Metro Theatre just down the road here from Parliament House. I still have that beautiful tile. The inside of that gorgeous building has just been completely destroyed. It is something that the minister—the current Labor minister—did not prevent. We have seen the Princess Mary Club go. Recently we have seen the Spinks Tinsmiths factory at 488 La Trobe Street—this beautiful, beautiful building—demolished for a skyscraper. I was, just before this speech, on Google Earth having a quick look at that site, and saw pictures of the bare earth where once this gorgeous old factory with these big beautiful windows stood. It is really gut-wrenching for people who live in the inner city. These are just a few examples of buildings we have fought to save and fights that we have lost. That is not even counting the countless heritage homes in my electorate and across greater Melbourne that are constantly under threat. There are community groups out there that are constantly having to spend their time fighting—fighting in VCAT, fighting the minister, fighting developers—just to save the beautiful character of and these beautiful old buildings in our city. They should not have to spend so much of their time doing that. We are seeing a lot of these examples of what makes Melbourne such a unique city—people come here to see these beautiful streetscapes—just making way for cookie- cutter apartments or hotel towers. So I am very glad to see these changes in the bill today that will make it harder for developers to destroy Melbourne’s heritage. I want to also reflect on a couple of points. Firstly, we also fought for a number of years to ban developer donations to political parties. There is a long history in Victorian politics of developer donations influencing the behaviour of governments in favour of developers and against the community and our heritage. I note that recently we had a bill before us around council elections. We were successful in our campaign to ban large donations to state politicians—they have now been capped at $1000—but in this bill that the government brought recently around council elections we had hoped there would be a clause about banning developer donations and donations from big vested interests to councillors and council candidates, because we know that a lot of these decisions around planning, development and heritage happen at a council level. But at the last minute this Labor government pulled that clause out of that bill, so we still have this loophole where developers can donate to councillors, to council candidates, which really corrupts the entire system. That is a big thing that we need to fix in this place. I also want to reflect on the fact that the speeches today on this bill have focused on one particular type of heritage, which is built heritage, which is mostly from the colonial era. While this built heritage is very special and is a big part of what makes our city Melbourne—we love and we protect these buildings because they reflect the culture and the history of our city—it is by no means the only type of heritage that is valuable. There is another type of heritage that is more important to our state, and that is the cultural heritage of our First Nations people. We have seen that governments are more than willing to look the other way when Aboriginal heritage sites are threatened and destroyed, and in fact governments, including this government, have taken a lead role in that destruction themselves. We just need to look at the destruction of the sacred Djab Wurrung trees at the end of last year, which were destroyed just to make way to widen a highway, to see the disregard that governments have for cultural heritage of First Nations people. We need to do better in this regard. There is also our natural heritage—our precious forests, our rivers, our trees, our green spaces, our parkland—which is all too often lost to urban development, to housing developments, to road- widening projects. There is provision in this bill that actually is making the destruction of our environment easier, in fact, by allowing an inactive quarry to keep its permits for up to 10 years so that mining can easily commence again even if it has been disused for years. The last thing we should be

BILLS 716 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 doing in a climate crisis and when we have this ecological crisis with collapsing ecosystems across Victoria is making it easier to destroy our precious earth and our precious ecosystems through mining. So while I am very pleased to support the stronger built-heritage protections in this bill, I do hope that this government and all governments take a look at how we are failing as a society to protect other parts of heritage that we have in our state. And I hope that we can commit, through the treaty process and through other processes, to doing better for our First Nations people, but also, through the inquiry that we have got at the moment into our ecosystems and through other processes, this government could look at how we can better protect our natural heritage as well. Mr TAYLOR (Bayswater) (18:41): Apologies to the member for Thomastown. I think it was meant to be the member for Thomastown and then me, but— Ms Green: What about me? Mr TAYLOR: And the member for Yan Yean I know is very much looking forward to speaking on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. It is a great privilege to be able to speak in this place on such an important piece of legislation, and of course no legislation comes to this place without significant work. This legislation in particular has undergone a great, great deal of work, and I thank the minister for his work and his constant reform and this government in its second term for continuing to reform our planning schemes and the planning environment to obviously improve economic activity, to improve growth, but also to get the balance right and to meet community expectations most importantly. And I want to thank the minister’s staff. We have heard, you know, very passionate speeches in this place today, and I note the member for Footscray’s passionate advocacy. I guess I have not heard too much about some of the particularly pertinent issues in the western suburbs, being an eastern suburbs man myself, but it was very interesting to hear some of her passion and that of other members of this place—people of all political persuasions in this place. I must say that prior to coming to this place I was a local councillor, and before that time I really had no idea about planning and planning provisions and matters, but you really learn. It is a bit of a trial by fire, the moment you are on council. Acting Speaker Carbines, I think you might have been on council yourself if I am not mistaken, and many people in this place have been on council. You learn very quickly the importance of having a robust planning system, a robust planning scheme, and of course the importance of reforming the planning system not just for locals in my area but right across the state of Victoria. My first encounter, as I said, was when I was on council, and I am heartened here talking about the reforms and the improvements we are making to the planning system in Victoria and also heartened by the fact that I really witnessed that firsthand when, in my time on council, this government worked with the Knox council on the Knox Housing Strategy. We talk about densification here. We have heard many speakers talk about appropriate development to neighbourhood character. I am very proud to be a resident of Knox, and neighbourhood character is something that I think every resident who has ever talked to me about planning has mentioned, in an email or a conversation, and how proud they are that Knox really has a particular character. There are tree canopies and there is lower scale living in your Knox residential areas, and this housing strategy really targeted—through the work of Knox council working with this government—making sure that we had staged housing and that we had housing that was appropriate to each particular situation, whether in a CBD or whether around local living areas or whether in bush-suburban areas. This government also worked with Knox council on strengthening what is known as the foothills policy. Everyone in Ferntree Gully and everyone in Upper Ferntree Gully and many parts of Boronia and the Basin will know the foothills policy off by heart. There is no doubt about that. This government, not just today, continues to reform our planning system to make it easier and fairer for all Victorians, but in my experience on council as well, it has a significant and remarkable track record

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 717 on protecting neighbourhood character and also working with councils on protecting heritage properties, which we know is incredibly important to locals. Of course, now being in this place, it is fantastic to be here to talk about strengthening some of the agencies that are related to our planning framework and further empowering them in the work that they do. But also with this government I am quite proud of some of the reforms we have made, recently announced reforms, to apartments to get rid of the idea of these dogboxes. Some of the stuff we have seen in the city in previous years really does not lead to great outcomes—‘great’ would not be the word that I would use. This government is getting on with that, but recently we have announced some of the open space reforms so they follow certain heights and for a certain amount of dwellings you have got to have a certain amount of open space. I live in an apartment myself, and I am very lucky my dog Penny the cavoodle is very happy. We are actually lucky we have got some open space, but there are many others out there, with cavoodles like Penny or otherwise, where it is not as significant. That is where this government steps in and steps in like it is today in continuing to reform the planning system. Another local example which I am very proud this government legislated on is the disgraceful conduct of a developer at the Wantirna caravan park site—a really, really sad affair for so many. For them it was a vestige of affordable housing, and unfortunately an unscrupulous developer essentially put an end to that. This government has made sure that we have reformed that system as well to make sure that those people who are in those situations get compensated. At the time we worked wherever we could with those residents to support them, and I am very glad to say that all those residents were supported into accommodation on leaving the caravan park. These are just a few examples of the work this government does. If you do not reform, if you do not improve, if you do not get on with the job of doing the hard yards when it comes to our planning system—it is not always a sexy topic for everyone in the community but important nonetheless—then you cannot make announcements like we did at the end of last year in terms of our big social housing build, which we know could not have occurred without the hard groundwork done by this government in its first term and now in its second term. We know the huge difference it will make—12 000 homes creating 10 000 jobs a year. It is going to change the lives of so many. For someone who grew up with so many friends who benefited from social housing, to get to the point where we got last year through the hard work of this government and through the advocacy of so many has been incredibly heartening to see. I know we will put a roof over the heads of people who really, really need it more than ever. Of course we know that the COVID pandemic unveiled some of the real hardships that people face day in and day out in our state of Victoria. This bill here today we know is part of a substantive planning system reform program and is delivering on our commitment to improve the efficiency of the planning system and to modernise the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in line with the recommendations of the commissioner to better transform planning approval processes. The focus of this bill is on measures that will support the government’s immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic and are critical for the state in terms of supporting early economic recovery and jobs growth, and that has never been more important than currently as we continue our road to recovery, signified by our jobs plan of creating 400 000 jobs by 2025 and half of those by 2022. This is part of that mission as well and part of that work. We know that this bill also includes amendments to the growth areas of infrastructure contribution and infrastructure contribution plan systems as well as some operational amendments to the Heritage Act 2017, which seem to, from my recollection of speeches in this place today, form some of the largest part of the shoutyness, for lack of a better word. Importantly this bill will deliver strengthened local heritage protections to ensure that actions such as the illegal demolition of the Corkman hotel in 2016 do not happen again. We know how important these provisions will be to protect our beautiful heritage homes. In Knox we are so lucky that we actually have some amazing heritage properties that are in council’s hands, that are in a level of government’s hands, and they have done a beautiful job of upkeeping them. One in

BILLS 718 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 particular is Millers Homestead in the beautiful leafy green suburb of Boronia. I am very proud to represent the fine people of Boronia. We are doing plenty of work out there, but we will obviously stick with the subject at hand here. Millers Homestead is a beautifully protected heritage home, one of the original homes in Knox. Of course Knox was mainly developed through the late 1960s, 70s and 80s, and this really is an absolute gem from some of the earlier settlers that moved into Knox well and truly before urban growth and obviously metropolitan development occurred in the outer eastern suburbs. We have also got Stamford Park Homestead, another beautiful old home slightly to the south—it may actually be in the member for Rowville’s area, but I have been there for a spot of dinner. It is a beautiful spot that locals love to visit. It has been retrofitted into a restaurant and is another one of those beautiful old-school homesteads that people will be able to enjoy for years to come. We have also got Ambleside, another one that is in council hands and another place that locals truly have a strong affinity with and connection with. Of course we know that this legislation will provide for greater flexibility for extractive industry planning permits by increasing the permit expiry periods of inactivity from two years to 10 years. This will assist in protecting the continuity of supply of materials for our infrastructure projects. And another small one as well is we are making the planning scheme amendment permits process—getting them released to the public within 10 days as opposed to the current 28—better for transparency. I commend this bill to the house. Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (18:51): It has been a long time, but I got here. I rise to make a contribution to the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, and I could not be prouder than to be part of a government that is committed to strengthening Victoria’s planning system. Our government has delivered and continues to deliver ongoing reforms to ensure that Victoria remains the most livable state through strengthening laws to protect our heritage as well as listening and acting upon the current and future needs of Victorians. This bill is substantial and reforms many aspects of the planning regime, but I will only comment on just a few aspects. The two I want to look at are the strengthening of local heritage protection to ensure that there are new provisions to punish landowners that really vandalise our heritage places and also some of the reforms that the government is putting in place to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic to support economic recovery and jobs growth. We said that we would strengthen heritage protections following the reprehensible and illegal demolition of the Corkman hotel, which many speakers before me have referred to, and now the bill being debated before us today will legislate provisions that achieve this exact purpose. The Corkman hotel is simply one example of the importance of heritage protections and of ensuring that crooks that do not obey the laws will be properly punished. The hotel was over 160 years old, built in 1858, and much like many other precious buildings, the Corkman hotel was not on the Victorian Heritage Register. However, it was covered by heritage rules. The minister responded swiftly to the demolition, taking legal action to seek enforcement against developers and introducing new planning controls. The legal options available were shown to be wanting, hence the legislation before us today. Sadly, no matter how watertight a law may be and how meticulously it is drafted, there are awful people that do everything they can to find a loophole or set up businesses in such a way as to avoid the law. So this is what we needed to do, and this is in great contrast to the nonsensical grandstanding of the shadow minister, who talked about things such as compulsory acquisition of the site at its at- present undeveloped value. Of course these notions are covered by legislation, which would have basically meant a windfall for the developer and owner of the property—the crooks and vandalisers— and it would have been Victorian taxpayers that would be disadvantaged at having to pay those prices. But thankfully the member for Kew is not the Minister for Planning and taxpayers do not have to bear the brunt of his lack of knowledge about acquisition and planning legislation. The Andrews Labor government is going to ensure that there is legislation to punish those that break the law when it comes to destroying our heritage. And we are doing this in this legislation that we are talking about today to make sure that if the owner of a building or a property demolishes something of heritage value, they will not be able to get permits to develop the land and they will be required to

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 719 reconstruct and reinstate and repair the heritage building. It also means that they may not be able to develop the land for up to 10 years if the owner has been convicted of a relevant offence around breaches of heritage and planning laws. We all know how important heritage is to our identity and our sense of purpose and place and who we are. Our heritage is reflected in buildings, places, cultures and traditions, all of them equally important in the understanding of who we are. In the electorate of Thomastown we have a number of historical sites of Indigenous Victorians, who are part of the longest continuous living culture, and also of European history. One that I am most familiar with is the Peter Lalor Home Building Cooperative Society estate, one of the few remaining examples of the garden city movement from the late 1800s— a movement of town planning that incorporated green spaces, facilities and amenities embedded within the very streets and places where people lived to create a self-sufficient village suburb. Set up in February 1947, it was an initiative of the Labor Party, returned servicemen and the trade unions. It was a scheme to support working people to build their own affordable homes in the suburbs rather than rent in the overcrowded, polluted inner city. Just after the Second World War, when Melbourne suffered a chronic housing shortage, the community came together in solidarity and established a vibrant building hub and estate working together for the benefit of all. The cooperative opened with six houses in 1948 and expanded to nearly 100 by 1954. Working people brought their resources together and secured 250 acres of land just to the east of Lalor railway station, on which the ex-servicemen planned to build over 1000 low-cost homes. Barbara Breaks, a strong Labor woman who has worked tirelessly for the community, grew up on the estate and lives there today. Barbara, who is now 84 years of age, spoke of the significance and historical context of the cooperative. She said:

My parents bought their block of land and built their home along with other homes in the cooperative back in the late 1940s. My father was an ex-serviceman, and like many other returned military men they had nowhere to live after serving in World War II. Everyone just had such a hard time building, so they would work in groups with their ex-servicemen friends, many of them also trade unionists, and they would all build together in a big community of people. You see, it is not just about preserving the physical buildings, it’s about remembering the contributions of our ex-servicemen and unionists and working people and what this estate represents for people like my parents back in 1947. Heritage protection is not merely about architecture or physical structure; it runs so much deeper than that. It is about people, it is about community and it tells cultural, social and historical stories about Victoria. Local heritage places are beyond important to current and future generations. Unfortunately the pioneering men and women of the Peter Lalor building cooperative did not achieve their aspiration of 1000 homes. Building materials such as cement were also in short supply. This legislation also futureproofs the Victorian economy, for another part of the legislation will ensure that our extraction materials, such as raw building materials like concrete and sand, will continue with planning permits that go beyond the current two years and up to 10 years. Again, today’s legislation is about futureproofing to ensure that we can build the infrastructure and the economy as we go on. Going back to the Peter Lalor estate building cooperative, unfortunately, as I said, it did not achieve the 1000 homes because of the short supply of cement and sand. And guess what—the government of the day, a Liberal government, refused to allocate supplies and rations to the cooperative, instead favouring the big profiteering developers, such as Jennings and other big building companies, at the expense of these ordinary people who were putting their future in their own hands to build homes for them and their families. The opposition today are complaining that not enough is being done to protect individual heritage, but they are hypocrites. They only care about the grand and stately homes that perhaps they live in, because when it comes to the Peter Lalor estate, the Baillieu-Napthine government wanted to rezone this area as maximum high-density residential, which would have meant the destruction of all these homes in this estate. Labor believes in fair planning rules that apply equally to all. The opposition cares only about the homes that they live in. The building cooperative continues on. Luckily we had a change in

BILLS 720 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 government to a Labor government and luckily we did not have to worry about the member for Bulleen, who was the planning minister in that Liberal government and who would have seen the destruction of this housing cooperative that is so important for the history of Victorians and Australians overall. This legislation is measured. It is a Labor government doing what it does to ensure that we secure a good economic future, we penalise those that seek to damage our society and we ensure that we apply the rules and legislation in an equitable way that applies equally to all. Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (19:01): It has been worth the wait, I think, to get up and speak on this Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. I am really delighted to follow my great friend the member for Thomastown, who has just reminded us about the importance of that working history and heritage in the Lalor estate. I also want to pay respect to the wonderful Barbara Breaks, who tells the great stories of that. When you have been in this place for 18 years, sometimes memories can dim about some of the atrocities that have occurred along the way, and it has been very instructive for me to listen to some of my colleagues speak about the atrocities that occurred in the planning space in those four short years that those opposite occupied the government benches—that is, from 2010 to 2014. I thought that I would add another chapter to those stories, particularly what the member for Thomastown just mentioned and also what the member for Footscray mentioned about what had occurred. The member for Thomastown talked about what was under threat in the north, in Lalor, and the member for Footscray talked about the legacy of those terrible decisions which are still impacting on Footscray and the Maribyrnong River and neighbourhood character there and the lack of planning for community services and infrastructure. At the end of the Brumby government in 2009, we in government introduced the growth areas infrastructure charge, and I am really glad and proud to say that we want the developers in this state to contribute to infrastructure. You know, we welcome their investment and building of homes and employment zones et cetera in our suburbs, but it is incumbent on them to share some of their profits by providing infrastructure, whether it is in kind or in land or in funds. But I recall at the time the absolute fear and loathing campaign that was run by a then member for Northern Metropolitan Region who represented the Yan Yean electorate and all of the north in the other place. This person, now the member for Bulleen, went on to become the planning minister. He and the then opposition leader ran a dishonest and lengthy and frightening fear campaign against the growth areas infrastructure charge. I am disappointed that the member for Warrandyte is not here, because I kept remarking to my residents in North Warrandyte at the time: why on earth was the member for Warrandyte wanting Warrandyte residents to fund new infrastructure in the new suburbs? The then member for Northern Metropolitan did a direct mail to every regional landholder, whether they were inside the urban growth boundary or outside the urban growth boundary, and scared the bejesus out of them by saying that they were going to have to pay the growth areas infrastructure charge. So I went to a public meeting with the then member for Seymour. It was only a few months after the Black Saturday fires, and the government had only made the announcement and had not put the flesh on the bones; we had just said it was an intention to legislate, and we were having community consultation around this measure. There were about a thousand people in the community centre at Beveridge when the member for Seymour and I arrived, and they had been whipped up into a fury. The meeting was chaired by one of the whitest-shoe developers you could imagine, and the speakers were a previous member for Hawthorn, Mr Baillieu, the then opposition leader, and the then Shadow Minister for Planning. I must say the fear that was put into my community on that night and the neighbouring areas in the electorate of Seymour was truly disgusting in the way that they frightened people, and I have been reminded of the hypocrisy of that when I have listened to the contributions by those on the other side. When we have proposed one of the measures in this bill—and there are many things in this bill, but I am going to focus on what it means for growing communities—I have heard a number of the members

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 721 of the opposition today saying they are opposed to a new tax, so it is like they are just returning to that fear campaign of 2010 and 2009. It is not a new tax; it is merely an alteration so that the Victorian Planning Authority, like councils, will be able to charge for developing—it is not a new levy, it will be taken from existing payments—and they will be able to charge for some of the work that they do just in the way that councils are. The work that the VPA has completed is 56 VPA-led precinct structure plans covering approximately 30 000 hectares with 283 000 projected dwellings, 878 000 people housed—and that is assuming 3.1 persons per dwelling—and 228 000 projected jobs created. I was with two developers yesterday, and they absolutely had no problem with this. They are willing to actually contribute to funding for other agencies—say, the water authorities—so that they can move on developing areas more quickly. I think the member for Mornington, a couple of others and the member for Kew also raised concerns about land compensation in relation to amendments to address the risk of compensation related to the operation of the planning compensation scheme for land that is reserved for a public purpose. We are clarifying that owners will only be eligible for compensation where a public acquisition overlay applies to the site. The objectives of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986, which provides the requirement for compensation, will still apply and are not proposed to be changed. So landowners’ rights will not change in terms of the ability to seek compensation. That is a fear thing that the opposition has put up that we will put to bed. So on the one hand we have heard from the opposition they very much care about heritage in the leafy suburbs and wherever it is they live, but on the other hand they are still not that interested in or committed to appropriate infrastructure and services and developers sharing the profits by contributing to infrastructure in our communities. I want to congratulate the fabulous developers that have done some really good developments in my community, and they have contributed. RCL Group have just been an outstanding developer in Mernda. We had land that we purchased for a secondary college in 2009 and—surprise, surprise—it sat there for five years while the other lot were in. It is now a wonderful prep-to-secondary college—and a shout-out to year 12 this year, who will be the first year 12 to go through. RCL supplied the land for that. They also supplied the land for the ambulance station in Mernda and for the police station. I cannot remember the name of the developer, but they are fabulous, in Donnybrook. They have willingly provided the land for a new school to be constructed up there in an estate on Donnybrook Road. They are very keen to start work and are a very forward- looking developer. The changes to council planning schemes, the streamlining of those and the municipal strategic statements—those sorts of details in their plans—were recommended so that we could reduce red tape. We began that process in 2019. Now with the COVID recovery we are very well placed to assist the construction industry to get on with doing what they do best, and that is providing new and affordable housing and working with government. I commend this bill to the house. Mr EDBROOKE (Frankston) (19:11): It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon, and it is always great to see you in the chair as well, Acting Speaker Taylor. Look, we have heard many great contributions from people on our side of the house about why we need to maintain our history through looking after heritage in our communities, and a beautiful community like Frankston is another great example of that. Without joining the pile-on, I think I can support this bill in a very passionate way. Of course we have heard people talk about the Corkman heritage issue, and on that I can only just quickly say that the Minister for Planning has been very, very clear that illegally demolishing heritage buildings is not on. It is not tolerated, and we should not tolerate it all. This is not something Victoria as a state should have to tolerate. It is really kicking dirt in the face of Victorians if you incur a pecuniary fine as part of your business plan to develop. Look, it has been a huge issue, as we have heard others speak about, but we really do need to do as much as we can to protect and value our heritage places in Victoria. On this one issue, I think the minister’s response was very swift. Legal action ensued. It sought enforcement against the developers, and new planning controls were introduced as well. Now, the minister has secured an order that if a planning permit is not sought by

BILLS 722 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

2022, that order requires the developers to rebuild the parts of the building with heritage value, including the roofs, the chimneys and external facades. The minister recognised that this should not be allowed to happen again, and that is why we are proposing this new legislation and we are here speaking about this today. You have probably already guessed that I very much commend this bill to this house, but what does the bill do? We have heard from some people on the other side of the chamber, who seem a little bit confused about what this bill will do after royal assent and when it becomes active. The aim of the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021 is to strengthen local heritage protection through new provisions to prevent landowners from benefiting from the unlawful demolition of heritage buildings or allowing heritage buildings to fall into disrepair. The bill will also support the government’s immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic and, critically for the state, support early economic recovery and jobs growth. It will do this by modernising and improving the efficiency and operational effectiveness of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in line with the recommendations of the commissioner for better regulation in her report Turning Best Practice into Common Practice, also supported by Building Victoria’s recovery task force. Now, as I recently said—as recently as 2 minutes ago—we have had many people in this chamber talk passionately about their commitment to the heritage in their part of Victoria, and I think I can match that. It was not that long ago that I met with the Ballam Park historical society, and a better bunch of people, a more committed bunch of people, to record history and keep our history alive so we can focus on the future—but to keep that history alive in our children’s eyes and in our eyes—you would not come across. They are a great bunch of people, complete with the 19th century—or in some ways 18th century—get-up, the horse and carriage, things like that. They work around the Ballam Park historical homestead, which is a huge piece of Frankston’s history. I will not go into Frankston’s history, but send a big shout-out to the volunteers—they do an amazing job with very little at times. But recently there was an issue with one of the trees around the Ballam Park historical homestead. It was a couple of years ago now, but there were some people with some very different opinions who were coming to my office and talking about that. It was then and there that I realised that there are some people in my community that would definitely put financial interest well above the history of our community and everyone’s appreciation of that history as well. I know that my community do value that history, and I think we made the right decision—instead of cutting down the tree we cut down that conversation pretty quickly, as should be done. The tree was, I believe, a Moreton Bay fig, from memory, that had been there at least 150 years, which is quite amazing. It is still there, and we are still looking after it. The original house, again, was the first house in Frankston. I cannot imagine our community without that house. Extending on from that is something like the Frankston railway signal box—again, another heritage-listed building. It is heritage listed because it is the only signal box of its type left in Victoria, and possibly the nation, and it is right here in Frankston. We do actually have historical train buffs come and check that out as well. I did promise my colleague from Nepean that I would tell a story about the Ballam Park historical homestead in Frankston, and I will, for your pleasure, Acting Speaker. Mr Brayne interjected. Mr EDBROOKE: Everyone’s pleasure indeed—thank you for that, member for Nepean. It was one night that I was on night shift at Frankston fire station. We did not know it at the time, but they had just installed a monitored alarm system at the Ballam Park Homestead—obviously for security reasons and fire reasons as well. When the alarm activated we proceeded to the homestead. We knew that there would be no-one there and hoped it was just some dust or something that had set a detector off. So in we went. There was no electricity. The place was absolutely dead. I might have seen one too many horror movies, but if you can, imagine me with a helmet on, with just a torch,

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 723 breathing apparatus on my back and a bowl of hose, walking through. I do not think I get scared by a lot of things. I am not scared of the dark usually. Mr T Bull interjected. Mr EDBROOKE: You might have heard differently. But I was the absolute laughing-stock of my shift when they found me on the ground like a turtle, shifting around trying to get back up. I had gone into a room in this beautifully maintained Ballam Park Homestead, which is part of Frankston’s history and heritage, and opened the door, and I was looking up to see if the active detector was on the roof. What I did not see was the woman in turn-of-the-19th-century garb standing there. At the time I thought she was a real woman—if you can imagine someone dressed in Pride and Prejudice style clothing. I jumped about 6 feet sideways. It just happened that at that moment, as it always does, there was someone there—there is always someone there when we do not want them there—who came in and said, ‘What are you doing wrestling on the floor?’. The issue was, though, that part of the breathing apparatus on my back caught the mannequin, and the mannequin actually fell on top of me. It is quite a bad position to be caught in. It was at that point that some nicknames were made up. Luckily they did not get it on film. Imagine, if you can, walking into a room, a very dark room, to find a poor old firefighter and a mannequin with a Pride and Prejudice dress on. I was no Mr Darcy, I will have you know that. I actually did tell that story; I was true to my word. Mr Brayne: Great story. Mr EDBROOKE: Thank you. It is an embarrassing story. That was really the way I actually got to know the historical society. They had a laugh about it. I do not know who told them, but someone did. Now in my role as an MP I am fairly close to those volunteers because they really are a bit of a temperature gauge or a thermometer for what is happening in our community, and certainly the amount of school tours, the amount of school visits and the amount of community visits to that house show that our community actually does highly value our heritage and it wants our planning scheme to reflect what our community is saying. I know that this bill before the house this evening actually does that. Yes, we have had some arguments for and against, but in my mind I am 100 per cent confident that this bill carries out exactly what it is intended to, and I commend the bill to the house. Mr CARBINES (Ivanhoe) (19:21): I am pleased to make a contribution on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021, and in particular I wanted to go to the Ivanhoe Structure Plan— a bit of history of the house in relation to planning and environment matters. Certainly as someone elected to Banyule City Council in 2005, one thing you learn in electorates and city boroughs like Ivanhoe and Banyule is the depth of passion and commitment of so many volunteers who live in the community and devote so much of their time to advocating for and advancing the interests of their community in relation to neighbourhood character and planning matters. Now, that is different in different communities. We would pass the hat around for a range of planning proposals that we would oppose in Ivanhoe. We would pass the hat around for gold coin donations if we needed to get a barrister or we needed to get some planning advice. But of course many people who live in those communities too would say, ‘Well, I’m a planning barrister and I will do it gratis. I will support the community’. We would have other professionals who would be willing to step in and help the community in which they lived to defend and advance the interests of neighbourhood character. There are other communities that rely very much on the publicly elected officials and the members of Parliament and local councillors in other communities to make sure that the law is abided by because there is not so much that watchdog attitude in the community. It is not because these communities value any less the neighbourhood that they live in, the neighbourhood character that they love and the places where generations of their families have grown up, but they have got other pressures and other priorities in their lives that they are also dealing with that mean they may not have the capacity or the time to defend and advance the interests of neighbourhood character in their communities. Certainly I have seen many unscrupulous developers seek to take advantage of that in West Heidelberg and other places where they feel they can run roughshod over local communities who have other pressing

BILLS 724 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 matters in their lives as well that they have to prioritise. They do not always have perhaps the luxury and the time to defend and advance their interests and their community’s interests in relation to planning matters in the same way that they do in chasing school upgrades or defending aspects of what needs to be protected in their local park or other elements of what makes their communities great. In a nutshell, going back to the 2012 Ivanhoe Structure Plan, we were determined when the draft came out from Banyule City Council at that time, from the mayor at that time, and I said that that Ivanhoe draft structure plan needed to be put in the bin because it did not have community support. He was a friend of mine on the council, we worked well together, but the mayor at that time at Banyule—he had previously been an electorate officer for the member for Bulleen and had certainly had opportunities, I think, and certainly had different political views at that time—was keen to get the draft Ivanhoe Structure Plan in in 2012. Many on this side of the house remember who was in government at that time. While I have great regard for that particular person’s role and the leadership they showed as mayor of Banyule, I do make the point very clearly about that draft Ivanhoe Structure Plan. From opposition we called out that it did not have community support, it did not have community engagement and involvement and it needed to go in the bin. From the community backlash the Save Ivanhoe group was established by Mr McNamara and others, and that draft Ivanhoe Structure Plan was put in the bin. They went back out and they consulted the community again. What we did find, unfortunately, was that the then conservative governments, the Baillieu and Napthine governments, were quite happy to have guidelines around planning in Ivanhoe, quite happy to have plans that we would like developers to adhere to, but there was nothing in relation to the Ivanhoe Structure Plan that was in the planning scheme, that was there for all time and that had to be abided by. They were merely guidelines, and we fought so hard to have those guidelines changed and incorporated into the planning scheme, but to no avail. I do not mind saying that this Herald Sun article, ‘The sky is no longer the limit for developers in Ivanhoe’, from 7 November 2017 states, and I quote:

The days of developers in Ivanhoe being able to exceed discretionary building height limits are numbered with strict new controls to be implemented. State Planning Minister Richard Wynne approved mandatory 18-metre height limits in the Ivanhoe Activity Centre as part of a State Government pilot program to clamp down on rogue developers. Planning permits will not be allowed to exceed maximum height limits and VCAT can’t order council to issue permits for developments above these heights—a practice that has long frustrated residents seeing high- rises mushroom across the area. Now, we had those interim planning controls, so we had to get in quick before developers bought up properties and sought to leverage a free-for-all under the lax and slack nod-and-a-wink planning guidelines established under the Baillieu and Napthine governments. So it was important to get interim planning guidelines in there while we worked through the planning scheme amendments and while we made sure that these things became effectively the planning law of the land in Ivanhoe. There were so many meetings, so many street walks to have a look at what good design is with people that I have known for decades in my local electorate, who have been at council meetings every fortnight. They have now moved to monthly, but every fortnight they would be there to scrutinise planning applications, to put forward the case for neighbourhood character in Ivanhoe. So often they would be hamstrung and let down because of the hard yards that needed to be done to get the local community backed by the state government and to say, ‘Your planning guidelines around neighbourhood character need to be planning laws to give greater effect to what we want to do in Ivanhoe’. I do commend the member for Richmond, the Minister for Planning, on the work that he did with us and also for cajoling and pressing and pushing his department to make sure that the work was done for interim planning controls and then for planning scheme amendments that ensured the Ivanhoe Structure Plan delivered for the community—not everything; nobody gets everything—and delivered certainty in the Ivanhoe community about heritage protections and about making sure that there is a very clear message that when you want to cross Darebin Creek, when you want to cross the Yarra

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 725

River and you want to come into 3079 you understand that this is the lie of the land. This is how planning laws work here. This is ground zero around what we will accept, what we expect. It is not about just guidelines that we want you to give some thought to. It is the law. It is the way planning laws work in our community. It was a hell of a lot of work, and I thank so very many people for what was done. It does not mean everything is resolved; planning is really challenging and difficult. Then we had other communities say, ‘Where’s our planning scheme amendment? Why don’t we have structure plans in Rosanna or in Heidelberg?’, which of course has a medical precinct. And so the lie of the land there and the planning laws have been very different. They are very different developments that we have seen across Heidelberg, and the topography is different. It has a very different feel to Ivanhoe. Distinct differences are okay, but we have also seen changes that perhaps not everybody has welcomed. But those structure plan pieces of work need funding from government and from local councils to prioritise that work, to do the heavy lifting, to get out there and do the street walks, to do the street stalls, to have the engagement with the communities to understand what is needed and then to make sure that we can provide the sorts of communities and the sorts of built infrastructure that people want. The other thing that we find in electorates like Ivanhoe is they are intergenerational. People come here and they die with their boots on. They do not leave; they love it. But what becomes hard is when it becomes more and more expensive to live a mere dozen kilometres from the CBD, and so many future generations are priced out of the community where they grew up and the community where they want to stay. We find those who have had families, made huge contributions to the community, would like to retire and stay in the community but they are sitting on very large blocks of land and in large homes and they want to downsize and stay in the community. So there is a desire to find housing stock that reflects the desire of a growing community, a community that is also ageing in place and that wants to stay, and to give them the housing choices they want—dual occupancy, apartments, townhouses of high quality and high standard. Also, there are people with a different mindset that maybe a house is not going to be the first thing they buy. Maybe it is going to be a townhouse, it is going to be an apartment, it is going to be a unit, and so what are those opportunities for people just breaking out and getting into the property market? I think there is so much that we can continue to do to make Ivanhoe the most livable place in Melbourne and in Victoria. We have come a long way in determining that we want to see neighbourhood character affirmed in the planning scheme. Ivanhoe continues to reflect the community that lives there, that loves it, that wants a distinct community, and we have worked very hard to enshrine that in planning law. That is the very big difference between those on this side of the house and those opposite. I commend the bill to the house. Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (19:31): It is good to rise to speak on this bill, and it is always good to see you in the chair as well, Acting Speaker Taylor. It is good to rise to speak after some great contributions from the member for Ivanhoe and the member for Frankston. I can pleasantly say that I have not been caught in a compromising position with an 18th-century-dressed mannequin like the member for Frankston was at Ballam Park Homestead. But we do have a homestead ourselves, the Coolart homestead down on the Mornington Peninsula, that is in my electorate. We also have the Continental Hotel. Heritage is very important to many parts of the Nepean electorate and many parts of the Mornington Peninsula. Anyway, it is great to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. It is obviously vital that we have a planning framework which ensures that we balance community expectations with efficient investment in the projects which will deliver the economic growth essential to Victoria’s prosperity. Obviously this is incredibly important after the shocks which Victoria has experienced in the last 12 months, whether that be the bushfires which devastated regional Victoria over the 2019–20 summer or of course the COVID-19 pandemic. It is from Victoria’s strong current standing in relation to the issue of planning that we can drive the reforms which will ensure that Victoria comes out of this difficult period stronger than ever.

BILLS 726 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

The government has long recognised the need to continually review the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the planning system to make sure that it is modern, fit for purpose and recognises the changing times and the needs of the community. It was from this recognition that the Andrews government commissioned a review of the planning and building approvals process in December 2019 for the purpose of streamlining state and local government planning to ensure the delivery of vital housing and infrastructure projects. This review is now more important than ever as it is vital that we maintain our competitive advantage with a planning framework which supports the homes, jobs and services needed to support population growth and the economic growth that will drive Victoria’s recovery. It is with this in mind that this legislation has been introduced as an essential part of the way that the Andrews government is transforming the planning system in Victoria as part of the $111 million investment in the most recent budget to reshape the framework and remove bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary delays. This legislation also introduces significant reforms to the act which deliver essential protections and enforcement measures to deliver on the act’s overarching objectives to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land, balancing the present and future interests of all Victorians, including those on the Mornington Peninsula. I will now turn to the specifics of this legislation. The first part of this legislation involves the introduction of stronger measures to prevent developers from illegally demolishing heritage buildings and wearing the cost of the fine as merely a cost of doing business. Perhaps one of the most egregious cases—it has been pretty well laboured in this debate by both sides—of course is the disgraceful actions of the developers who demolished the Corkman hotel in 2016. Under the existing regulations in the Planning and Environment Act the maximum penalty for illegal demolition of a heritage building without a planning permit can be a fraction of the economic benefit of developing the land. In addition, for developers who illegally demolish a heritage building without a permit and are prosecuted with the maximum fine there is no mechanism to prevent them from submitting a planning application to develop the land. As such, this legislation will introduce significant changes to prevent developers from profiting off the unlawful demolition of buildings with significant heritage value. Firstly, the bill proposes that a planning scheme may regulate or prohibit the development of land on which a heritage building has been unlawfully demolished or fallen into disrepair. This can be enforced through the introduction of requirements in planning schemes that a permit for the development of the land must not be granted unless the development is for or includes the reconstruction or reinstatement or repair of the heritage building that is on the land or was on the land. Secondly, the bill will create an additional power for the Governor in Council on recommendation of the minister to make an order that the land must not be used or developed for a period of up to 10 years if the owner has been convicted of an offence related to the unlawful demolition of a building. These provisions are strong deterrents and disincentives to illegal demolition or allowing a heritage building to fall into disrepair and will serve to prevent the destruction of buildings which form a significant part of our local heritage by developers who seek to profit from their unlawful demolitions. The second part of this legislation involves changes to the planning compensation scheme in order to provide clarity and certainty around the circumstances under which a person may claim compensation in the event that land is reserved for public use. Under the existing legislation an owner or occupier of land who is affected by the reservation of land for a public purpose may claim compensation. The scheme does, however, have significant risks and issues, specifically in cases where structure plans are incorporated into a planning scheme which is proposing public uses without a public acquisition overlay being applied to the land to facilitate its compulsory acquisition. This can lead to situations where a permit refusal by a planning authority on the grounds that the development is incompatible with the relevant structure plan can automatically trigger compensation. This issue has been addressed in part through the introduction of the infrastructure contributions plan regime in 2018. However, there is still a gap in the regulatory framework for cases where there is no ICP. As such, this legislation will amend the qualifications so that the right to claim compensation only applies if the provision of the

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 727 planning scheme that has reserved the land for a public purpose has an express purpose of reserving land, such as through the imposition of a PAO. These changes ensure that compensation for the refusal of a planning permit is only granted in the event that the land has been reserved for a public purpose. The third part of this legislation relates to changes to publication and notification requirements, particularly regarding requirements that documents be made physically available for inspection. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the public health measures implemented in response to the crisis highlighted early on the limitations of the current arrangements for notice, publication and inspection of documents as under the existing legislation all documents must be made physically available. As part of the emergency measures which were passed in the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 these requirements were temporarily altered to allow for digital publication of these documents. As a result, these changes have allowed councils and other government offices to keep the planning system operating while access to offices for both staff and the general public has been restricted. As the temporary measures have been welcomed by local councils and the community, this legislation proposes to replace them with permanent provisions that reflect a more flexible and modern approach to making information available to members of the public. Additionally, the requirements for making a register available electronically are that a responsible authority or a referral authority makes a register searchable and free of charge on an internet site maintained by that authority. This ensures that reporting requirements are simply being updated to reflect the changing way in which we view information in the digital world while still keeping with the intention that this information be freely available to the public upon request. These provisions are also in line with recommendations from the commissioner for better regulation, who has called for a more modern and user-friendly basis for public notice of an application and to enact two key recommendations which require legislative change. The bill reduces the amount of time that a report to the relevant planning authority can be embargoed from the current period of 28 days to 10 business days. This represents a significant reduction in the time that the report can be made available to affected parties, representing a significant improvement in transparency around planning decisions. The bill will alter the reporting requirements for a planning authority which chooses to abandon an amendment during the planning scheme amendment process. Currently planning authorities can abandon an amendment at any time. There is no requirement to provide any justification as to why an amendment has been abandoned. As such, this legislation will require a planning authority to notify the minister, in the event that an amendment is abandoned, within 10 business days and a statement as to why the amendment did not proceed is to be posted on the website of the relevant planning authority. The fourth part of this legislation involves changes to the operation of planning panels, which have also had their inflexibilities highlighted with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the existing legislation the planning panels, which independently assess planning proposals and major projects, are required to conduct hearings and deliberations in person, with no provision to remotely conduct hearings via digital technology. As was the case with the publication requirements for planning documents, the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 included temporary changes which allowed for hearings to be conducted remotely. As such, this legislation will amend the Planning and Environment Act to include new provisions which allow for hearings to be conducted remotely through the use of an audiovisual link or in person. This will greatly improve both the efficiency of holding public hearings related to planning as well as improve accessibility and transparency for the general public. This is of particularly great benefit to matters in regional Victoria as remote conducting of hearings will greatly improve access for those making submissions in regional areas. The bill also includes new provisions that require the audio link or audiovisual link to be able to be heard by members of the public as either an audio link or an audiovisual link, ensuring that the process remains open and transparent with the public.

BILLS 728 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

Victoria has a clear advantage in Australia when it comes to a planning framework, but of course no system is perfect. The reforms outlined in this legislation will ensure that our planning regulations are up to date and fit for purpose, with significant improvements to digital accessibility and transparency being a crucial aspect of the changes. I commend this bill to the house. Ms SETTLE (Buninyong) (19:41): I am really delighted to stand to speak on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. When I was reading through the information on this bill it struck me that yet again here is a bill that is really about this government fulfilling its commitments. We do what we say and we say what we do. It is a part of a substantive planning system reform program which delivers on our commitment to improve the efficiency of the planning system and modernise the Planning and Environment Act 1987. That has come about in line with the recommendations from the commissioner for better regulation to transform the planning process. In March 2019 the Treasurer and the Minister for Planning instructed the commissioner for better regulation to undertake a comprehensive review of Victoria’s planning approvals process to remove red tape and streamline local and state government planning. The commissioner for better regulation undertook extensive consultation with industry, councils, referral authorities, developers, building practitioners, consultants, government departments and regulators to review the whole of the system. This consultation process included one-on-one and group meetings, site visits, presentations to relevant groups and other forums, and the release of a discussion paper. So really this bill has come about after long consultation around red tape, and there are a few elements for me that really stand out. As the member for Buninyong, I am a regional member and always delighted to see that consideration has been given to those of us in the regions. Some elements of this bill have come about around allowing planning panels in Victoria to conduct audio hearings and use audiovisual links. This is going to be a real benefit for those of us in regional Victoria. Of course it came out of temporary things that we put in place during the COVID crisis, but I really love the fact that this government has said, ‘Okay, these are the things that did work’, listened to people in the industry and has put it into a permanent state. Giving more access to regional people is incredibly important. One of the other elements of the bill is around ensuring a financially sustainable Victorian Planning Authority by introducing greater equity in funding precinct structure planning costs, enabling the VPA to seek a contribution towards those costs from those landowners who benefit through the growth areas infrastructure contribution. In Ballarat at the moment we are really seeing a boom. I look out to the west of Ballarat and it is really growing, and it has been beholden on me and my colleague the member for Wendouree to make sure that those services are in place as those areas grow. So it seems very fitting to me that some of those windfall profits for developers and landowners from broad hectare land being rezoned for urban housing go into supporting the things that people need in those growing areas. The growth areas infrastructure program has funded 112 projects since 2016, with 66 projects currently in the active delivery phase. But another element of this that a lot of people have spoken about in this house today is of course the heritage aspect of it. I live in Ballarat, and I have heard everyone list all of the wonders of their electorates and their heritage contributions, but I think that the member for Wendouree would agree with me that probably in Ballarat we are the stand-out in terms of our gorgeous, gorgeous architecture and heritage buildings. You only need to look at the wonderful Lydiard Street and the buildings across there. A lot of people come to film now in Ballarat. There is often filming in Ballarat because the whole of Lydiard Street is just this beautiful heritage piece. I was really interested to hear the contribution from the member for Bendigo West, and she talked about some of the beautiful things in Castlemaine. I had a little personal giggle to myself when she talked about the amazing Buda homestead in Castlemaine. I have a very personal relationship with Buda. When it was first put into the hands of the National Trust my parents took over as caretakers, so I grew up in Buda when I was 17 years old. It was a funny experience because when the tourists came in on the weekend I had to get my washing off the line and hide in my teenage bedroom. I do

BILLS Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 729 agree with the member for Bendigo West that Buda is absolutely stunning, but I would say that Ballarat has an awful lot to rival that. Mr Brayne interjected. Ms SETTLE: In Ballarat? There was one just the other week. Mr Brayne: Is that right? Ms SETTLE: That’s right. We have Her Majesty’s Theatre Ballarat, and this government has invested an enormous amount of money to restore their heritage there. The member for Brighton mentioned that this government had no care or concern for heritage, and I found that pretty extraordinary. I know in my own town I have seen the amount of money that has been invested in heritage preservation. Her Majesty’s Theatre saw a lot of money to keep it in good working order, and one I am really proud of as well is the Ballarat Regional Trades and Labour Council building. We have the second-oldest trades hall in the world, and it is a beautiful building—an absolutely beautiful building—and I was really delighted that money went towards restoring its beautiful history. Whilst we have all of these wonders, we also have had our own share of problems where local developers have destroyed our heritage. In 2013 the former Cobb and Co stables on a property at Miners Rest were demolished without permission. A developer demolished the 158-year-old stables of the Newmarket Hotel, the hotel which gives Miners Rest its name. These stables were part of our gold rush history and should have been preserved for future generations. The City of Ballarat declined to pursue a conviction and refused to name the developer. Instead a diversion order was put in place with a tiny $3000 penalty. I, for one, believe that the value of my history and the value that Ballarat has to offer wider Australia around the whole of the gold rush period is worth a whole lot more than $3000. Stuart Kelly of the Ballarat Heritage Watch said:

These new laws would appear to address issues which heritage groups have been concerned about for many years—deliberate demolitions without a permit or sometimes in spite of the refusal of a demolition permit, and ‘demolition by neglect’ where heritage protections on buildings have been circumvented by developers by simply allow a building to fall into ruin, become unsafe and past any point of restoration. You can certainly hear from that quote that for those of us in Ballarat this legislation is incredibly important. What it does functionally is ensure that developers cannot just ride into town, knock a building down and then go on to build some modern monstrosity. It means that for 10 years the permits around that land are restricted, so there is not that ability just to profit, I guess, by completely and flagrantly ignoring the laws. In Melbourne of course there has been a lot of talk around the Corkman pub, but I would say to you that for those of us in Ballarat the loss of the Cobb and Co in Miners Rest was just as devastating and perhaps in many ways more devastating because it was really about our gold rush history. This bill will not hinder infrastructure delivery by seeking a fair and equitable contribution towards the VPA through development funding paid for by developers. This is capped at only 1 per cent of contributions paid and worth far less than the beneficial work they do for our communities. I notice that those on the other side like to shriek about a ‘grand new tax’. Well, it hardly seems to me to be a grand new tax with a cap of 1 per cent, which is going to provide for communities in those growing areas all of the things that they desperately need. It is a very important bill in that we are supporting our industry and facilitating economic recovery while also improving the public’s ability. The bill will support early economic recovery and jobs growth by providing an easy, online and accessible planning system and creating more efficient processes to provide ongoing productivity improvements. But really I think for me what is most fundamental in this is around that protection of our heritage. We in Ballarat are very, very proud of our history, and I am delighted that the Minister for Planning has brought this forth to secure our future. Mr CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (19:51): It is with some pleasure that I rise this afternoon to make my contribution on the Planning and Environment Amendment Bill 2021. I do so as a regional MP

BILLS 730 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 who represents Victoria’s fastest growing regional community and indeed one of the fastest growing regional communities throughout Australia. Of course over my time representing that community, which expands for over a decade now both here and in other places, and being a member of the community, we have seen a raft of different planning decisions, some of which have been made in a thoughtful and considered and appropriate way. On other occasions we have seen planning decisions being made on a political whim, and that is something that I think in a general context in terms of the Victorian community maintaining faith in our decision-makers we ought to not see. Now, to put that growth in context, the South Barwon community as the borders currently have it has about 60 000 voters and I would assume something like about 90 000 residents within those boundaries, and over the next 10 to 15 years the population projection for my seat is of course to see substantial growth. I think that in the existing community as we currently know it, as Armstrong Creek and as the Surf Coast continue to grow over the next 10 to 15 years, we are likely to see another 40 000 or 50 000 people calling my part of Geelong home. When I look around the room I see many Labor colleagues who represent growth corridors throughout regional Victoria and indeed in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, and I must say I continue to hear their advocacy in this place about that growth and what it means and the importance of having thoughtful and considered laws in place and, importantly, thoughtful and considered ministers making appropriate decisions after going through appropriate planning processes. I think that makes a huge amount of sense, and in many ways for a lot of Victorians their only interaction really with government can be through planning decisions and making sure that planning controls that are put in place are appropriate and that there is not inappropriate development. I very much want to just put on record that Armstrong Creek, which has won a huge number of awards, has been a part of my growth corridor that has been well managed. It went through an extensive public consultation process, and we see Armstrong Creek today being built. It is a livable community. The developers and the City of Greater Geelong have put in place all the appropriate controls to make sure that that is a sustainable community, that there are walking trails, that there are local recreational opportunities within those communities. Importantly, developers are required under the growth planning arrangements to contribute to the funding of those much-needed community spaces to make sure that that community remains livable and an attractive place not only to move to in Geelong but to raise a family and the like, and that is something of that I have been very pleased to see. I also want to take the opportunity to reflect on the circumstances of the Torquay community. For those that are familiar with Torquay and Jan Juc, that population and that community has grown extensively over the last decade. It has taken on a lot of additional people because Victoria’s Surf Coast is famous, and it is a place that is very, very attractive to live. But unfortunately we have seen from time to time ministers who have not used appropriate planning controls and have been reckless with their decision-making, which has created an enormous amount of anxiety in the community. There was one particular occasion that I can remember where the former Minister for Planning, the member for Bulleen, wanted to extend the town boundary to about 2 kilometres west of a local street called Duffields Road. It was done without having appropriate planning controls in place, and of course people were very concerned that at that point in time for the planning minister there were far too many cosy arrangements and fundraising opportunities with the developers responsible at the time. I must say that has continued to cause a great deal of anxiety within my community, and indeed at the last election I campaigned extensively about making sure that we have appropriate town boundaries and height limits throughout Torquay. Indeed through a thoughtful minister in the current Minister for Planning we have a process that is now underway that will set appropriate town boundaries, will set appropriate height limits, will be done in a public way providing opportunities for the community and for stakeholders such as the council and developers for that matter to make their submissions and to make their case as to where town boundaries and height limits ought to be. I am very grateful for the minister and his efforts—as I said, a thoughtful minister who has exercised his responsibilities

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 731 absolutely appropriately, unlike Matthew Guy, who recklessly wanted to shift a town boundary to favour a number of developers, who I have no doubt are mates of Matthew Guy. Ms Staley: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for South Barwon should know full well he has to refer to people by their appropriate titles. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would ask all members to refer to members in this house by their correct titles. Mr CHEESEMAN: Terrific. I am very happy to of course refer to the member for Bulleen, who I believe at that point in time when he was the Minister for Planning was reckless with his planning decisions, not only in my part of Victoria but I think in many ways in many other parts of Victoria. I am very pleased today to be able to speak on these important arrangements. As I have said throughout this contribution, I think it is important that we have strong laws that underpin our planning processes. I think it is— (Time expired) Business interrupted under resolution of house today. Adjournment The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is:

That the house now adjourns.

DUNOLLY INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS Ms STALEY (Ripon) (20:00): (5661) This evening my adjournment matter is for the Minister for Housing, and it relates to the Dunolly independent living units project. The action I seek is that the Minister for Housing secures the $3 million in funding necessary in the upcoming 2021–22 state budget to ensure the Dunolly independent living units project’s completion. Despite little involvement from the Andrews government, the Dunolly District Hospital Auxiliary have continued to progress this project in conjunction with Community Housing Limited, the Maryborough District Health Service and the Central Goldfields Shire Council. Last year I wrote to the Treasurer asking that the Andrews government provide $3 million in the 2020–21 state budget to facilitate this project’s delivery. Unfortunately that was not delivered. There is no purpose-built independent living accommodation currently in Dunolly, with the only option there being the residential aged-care facility at the Dunolly district hospital. On top of that, the project is ready to start. There is a clear need, and it is ready to go. I wrote to the Treasurer in the first instance because this is a shovel-ready project that is ideal to be included as part of the COVID stimulus recovery and particularly the government’s much-vaunted public and social housing aspects of that. This would be a rural project that would fit within their criteria, absolutely ready to go, and I genuinely cannot understand why therefore the Treasurer and so far the Minister for Housing have not seen fit to progress this project. The community is fully behind this project. I have spoken on this project a couple of times in the house before. They really have put a lot of work into getting this project to exactly the right stage so that it can be funded. Time is really running out for the volunteer committee with its momentum, so this time around in the budget the government needs to step up and fund this much-needed project. PLASTIC BAG BAN Mr BRAYNE (Nepean) (20:02): (5662) The action I seek is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to provide an update to my community on the ban of single-use plastics and how this affects my community of Nepean. The southern peninsula and Western Port communities are surrounded by pristine beaches and coastlines, and the townships that make up these areas will undoubtedly benefit from the Andrews government’s decision made last week. I have already been contacted by many local residents, environment groups and folks who pick up rubbish in their spare time all the time telling me how this decision will reduce marine and land-based pollution, reduce

ADJOURNMENT 732 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 the amount of waste going to landfill and reduce emissions. I look forward to updating my community on the minister’s response and to letting them know the benefits we will reap from this decision. GIPPSLAND EAST EVENTS Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (20:03): (5663) My adjournment tonight is to the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, and the action that I seek is the fast-tracking of COVID-safe plan approvals. We have a number of events coming up in the East Gippsland electorate that we really need to have running to assist in our economic recovery after the last 14 months that we have had, and they as yet, despite lodging their applications some time ago, have not had these approvals. I have a couple of examples. The East Gippsland Field Days is by far our biggest event in East Gippsland, with a massive volunteer committee that works hard year round. The uncertainty with that event on next month—that they do not have their COVID-safe plan—is causing obviously significant concern. The Buchan Rodeo: Buchan, absolutely devastated by the fires, have their rodeo on Easter Sunday. They do not have a COVID-safe plan approval as yet—another volunteer committee that puts in many, many hours—and they need that peace of mind. Now, when we have raised these issues before, the minister has said that he makes no excuse for having a high level of scrutiny. I do not have a problem with that, but when these organisations lodge their applications early they should be dealt with within a reasonable time frame. To have them being dithered on for this long with no response just is not good enough. One of the bizarre elements of some feedback that came from the approvals process was that a question on the field days related to the deep clean. The field days are held in an open paddock—you do not deep clean grass and gravel. We need these fast-tracked. We need these sent through so that these volunteer committees have the peace of mind and knowledge that their events are going ahead. I would urge the minister not only for these events but for all events in rural and regional Victoria that they get onto these quicker and get them approved quicker. GLENROY COLLEGE Ms BLANDTHORN (Pascoe Vale) (20:05): (5664) I appreciate the opportunity to raise an adjournment matter for the attention of the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that the minister come to Glenroy College to officially open the newly transformed school there. Over the last year the facilities at Glenroy College have been the subject of a massive transformation. It has been one of the biggest building projects that has occurred in my electorate. We committed $9.2 million for a massive upgrade of the school. It was just fantastic last year to see, with COVID-safe practices in place, how much work could be done to bring this vision to life. This is particularly important for the Glenroy and Oak Park communities, who have been lobbying for some time for modern facilities that would inspire excellent teaching and learning outcomes and also allow the school to develop a range of subject choices at the state school that is closest to home. The minister will recall, because he has visited before, that the facilities were tired and in desperate need of repair in many instances. This $9.2 million investment has completely transformed the school and has been a great inspiration to the school community. I would just like to acknowledge the leadership and commitment of Glenroy College principal Anne- Maree Crivelli, who has overseen this massive rebuild alongside periods of remote learning. Anne- Maree has worked hard to continue to engage with the school community around this project despite the limitations that 2020 threw at us. These facilities will complement all the other programs that are delivered at this school and will ensure that students who attend Glenroy College have opportunities in place for them to be able to reach their full potential. I would welcome the minister coming to officially open the new Glenroy College facilities.

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 733

PORT FAIRY EMERGENCY SERVICES Ms BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (20:07): (5665) My adjournment matter is for the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and the action I seek is funding certainty for the Port Fairy SES to build a new base co-located with the local CFA brigade. I have raised this issue several times in this place. I raised it during the debate on the Emergency Management Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 on 8 March 2018, then again in a constituency question on 20 June 2018, in an adjournment on 10 September 2019, in another constituency question on 4 March 2020, in a members statement on 13 October 2020 and then during my reply to the latest state budget papers. My contributions in this place are on top of all the countless letters and communications to the minister advocating on behalf of the volunteers. I also pledged ahead of the 2018 state election that this joint base would be a project that a Liberal government would fund, because I understand how important this project is. Despite all this advocacy, so far all the Andrews Labor government have done is put up a sign and provide a wishy-washy commitment that the relevant agencies are working together to progress the development. The minister, or acting minister, needs to come and see what these volunteers are working out of in Port Fairy. If they saw it for themselves, they would understand just how dire the situation is. I have been there many times now. One day it was pouring rain and there were buckets all over the place catching the leaks from the roof. There is a hole in the floor. There just is not enough room for the working group to do the things they need to do, such as the important training they do. There are also access issues, with vehicles needing access past the public toilets in front of the building parking across the front gates. The facility is holding the group back in terms of their response to emergencies and in recruiting new members. I mean, who would want to join a group that is based out of a leaky old shed with the most basic of facilities? Then there are the issues surrounding the ongoing lease of the building, with the landlord indicating that they want the site back. They have so far been willing to wait until the SES have a new site. Who knows how long that willingness will continue? I understand there has been some background work happening. The SES in Port Fairy are concerned that the new fire station seems to be progressing faster than their plans. It is the desire of everyone involved to have both services co-locate, and the fear is that the SES is being left behind. I am asking the minister to give his guarantee that funding to build the new SES base will be provided in the May budget to provide certainty for the SES volunteers and the community who rely on them to keep safe. BURWOOD ELECTORATE MENTAL HEALTH ROUND TABLE Mr FOWLES (Burwood) (20:10): (5666) My adjournment this evening is directed to the Minister for Mental Health and Deputy Premier. The action I seek is for the minister to engage with mental health professionals and stakeholders within the Burwood electorate at a virtual round table to discuss the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. In 2020 the then Minister for Mental Health, the member for Albert Park, attended a virtual round table with mental health professionals and other relevant stakeholders from my electorate to discuss the progress of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. This opportunity to hear an update on the work of the commission and offer feedback to the minister was greatly appreciated by those stakeholders. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to introduce the minister to these hardworking mental health professionals from my electorate as part of a follow-up roundtable discussion of the final report of the commission. At the tabling of the final report today and in parliamentary contributions from my colleagues here and in the other place, we heard about how mental health touches all of us. It is no secret that I have struggled with mental illness; in fact it is common knowledge. The publicity surrounding my journey has been challenging at times, but one positive that has come from it is that it has opened my door to others who are struggling. I am regularly approached by constituents, friends and colleagues from across the Parliament and indeed strangers with stories of their lived experiences.

ADJOURNMENT 734 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021

There really is no limit to the reach of the impacts of mental ill health. It finds us everywhere and at any time. It also sees us looking for or receiving help sometimes in unexpected places. There are many stakeholders in my community who are not mental health professionals yet often provide important support through their organisations: sports clubs and men’s sheds, neighbourhood houses and churches, community groups and associations. Indeed just last Sunday I was at the Burwood Cricket Club, where they updated me on their pilot mental health support program, which provides their members with free counselling services on a completely anonymous basis. Reading the final report today, I was struck by the personal story of commission witness Rick Corney, who credits his local cricket club with providing support critical to his recovery. It reaffirms my belief in the importance of local networks, and I look forward to introducing the minister to some of those networks in Burwood. GREATER SHEPPARTON SECONDARY COLLEGE Ms SHEED (Shepparton) (20:12): (5667) My adjournment is for the Minister for Education, and the action I seek is that he provides Greater Shepparton Secondary College with the resources it needs to address the escalating bullying and violence being experienced at the school. Your government, through the Shepparton Education Plan, has provided $120 million for the new Greater Shepparton Secondary College, an extraordinary investment and opportunity to transform secondary education in our region. The falling enrolment numbers, poor attendance rates and low aspiration and educational outcomes were widely known across all regional areas, and the investment in the Shepparton Education Plan has been very welcome in the hope that these long-term issues will be addressed. The new buildings are well progressed, and the facilities being provided are outstanding. Our children deserve this state-of-the-art, fit-for-purpose building, but at the moment and during this transition period there is ongoing bullying. There is fear, racial tensions and escalating violence among a small group of students at the school. During last year at the Mooroopna campus those tensions were starting out, they were increasing, and last week they erupted at the Wanganui campus, culminating in really terrible incidents on Friday the 26th. The violence clearly demonstrated the underlying and unresolved issues that have been festering not only in our secondary colleges but in the broader community for several years. Parents have contacted my office and are reporting that they are very concerned about the level of violence. Some students are too frightened to attend school. As hard as they may try, teachers are under-resourced to deal with these matters. It is time to tackle this head-on; it is time to draw a line in the sand. Any form of violence should not be tolerated in any setting. Greater Shepparton Secondary College needs the additional resources you have recently provided on campus to continue throughout the whole year to tackle this issue. The police must do their job and receive full cooperation from all of those involved to gather the evidence they need and to bring to justice those students who have broken the law. Shepparton is a multicultural society, and this in itself creates challenges. We congratulate ourselves on this, but we need to deal with it and we need to make our community one that can work together on issues like this. I worked all weekend speaking with parents, police, school representatives, departmental officers and the minister’s office to ensure the supports are available. I ask that these stay in place on an ongoing basis. INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY Ms ADDISON (Wendouree) (20:15): (5668) In the lead-up to International Women’s Day on Monday, 8 March, my adjournment matter is to the Minister for Women. The action that I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update on how the Andrews Labor government is supporting and improving the lives of women and girls across Ballarat and the electorate of Wendouree. The theme of International Women’s Day 2021 is ‘Choose to Challenge’, and I am proud to be a member of the Andrews Labor government, which is committed to gender equity and challenging the status quo. From our first-ever gender equality strategy to Australia’s first gender equality act, Victoria is leading the nation on gender equality.

ADJOURNMENT Tuesday, 2 March 2021 Legislative Assembly 735

The Andrews Labor government respects women and recognises the important contribution women make to Victoria. We have our state’s first majority women cabinet backed by government benches that are 48 per cent women. Many of this government’s progressive reforms have been led by bold, smart and strong women sitting at our cabinet table, including wage theft, medicinal cannabis, workplace manslaughter, free TAFE, voluntary assisted dying and renewable energy, as well as the world-first Royal Commission into Family Violence. I thank the wonderful women of the cabinet for their leadership and for being strong role models for future generations of Victorian women, including the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, who is in the chamber. The Andrews Labor government understands that with more women at the decision-making table you make better decisions. That is why we have gender parity on government boards and have committed to ensuring 50 per cent of all new appointments to Victorian boards and courts will be women, because when it comes to gender equality we know that we still have a long way to go. But our work will continue, and it is not over. I want to wish everyone a very happy International Women’s Day and strongly encourage women and girls across Victoria to choose to challenge, because from challenge comes change. I look forward to receiving the update from the Minister for Women about how this government is making Victoria an even better place to live for women and girls and to sharing this information with my electorate of Wendouree. OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATION REGULATOR Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) (20:17): (5669) I raise a matter for the Premier. The action I seek is that he investigate the membership of the Office of the Conservation Regulator’s (OCR) stakeholder reference group. The stakeholder reference group that advises the Office of the Conservation Regulator has members that have a massive conflict of interest. First up we have Danya Jacobs from Environmental Justice Australia, which represents and even encourages serial litigants against VicForests. Then we have the queen of serial litigants, Sarah Rees, leading the charge for the great forest national park—a proposal deliberately designed to end the native forest timber industry in Victoria—a person of questionable background and a director of a radical green group that still owes VicForests and the Victorian taxpayer over $1 million in court costs. And to make it three-all, the group Wildlife of the Central Highlands, or WOTCH, also advise the conservation regulator. This group currently have VicForests in court pending the outcome of an appeal that has 70 per cent of coupes on the timber release plan subject to a court injunction. And—surprise, surprise—Danya Jacobs is representing WOTCH in their action against VicForests. All of these groups have one agenda, and that is to end native forest timber harvesting as soon as possible. How can they possibly offer impartial advice to the conservation regulator? The OCR stakeholder reference group is meant to provide advice and support to the chief conservation regulator in being an effective, trusted, best practice regulator for the Victorian community and the environment. VicForests rely on the approval of the OCR for their timber release plan. Environmental Justice Australia, Sarah Rees and WOTCH are all responsible for the dissemination of deliberate blatant misinformation about the native forest industry. Statements like ‘Native forests are being destroyed by VicForests’, ‘Old-growth forest is being logged’ and ‘Native forest is being harvested just to keep Australian Paper going’ are all deliberate lies consistently repeated on social media by Sarah Rees and WOTCH. They have direct access to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, who herself has proven to be completely incompetent and to be deliberately undermining the industry. The Labor government’s timber policy announced recently outlines a gradual reduction in native forest timber harvesting from 2024–25 with a transition to plantation by 2030. Industry were promised by the Premier that current harvesting volumes would be maintained until 2024. Right now we have sawmills in East Gippsland that will be standing down staff because they have no logs to process. As I said earlier, 70 per cent of the coupes to be harvested in the Central Highlands are currently unavailable because of third-party litigation by WOTCH. The environment minister is allowing this

ADJOURNMENT 736 Legislative Assembly Tuesday, 2 March 2021 to happen based on advice from the OCR, effectively undermining her own government’s forest policy. The Premier must act now, or he will prove to be complicit in the destruction of the livelihoods of hardworking timber workers and their families well before 2030. GRAFFITI PREVENTION GRANTS Mr KENNEDY (Hawthorn) (20:20): (5670) My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Crime Prevention. The action I seek is that the minister provide an update on the outcomes of the graffiti prevention grant of $18 000 given to Boroondara City Council for the refurbishment and installation of two murals on each side of the rebound wall in Grace Park in my electorate of Hawthorn. These are the second and third murals being delivered in Hawthorn, with the first mural, near Auburn station, having been completed in May 2019, which has improved the amenity around Auburn station. Since 2015 the government has partnered with councils and local communities by providing nearly $2.2 million in funding to support 111 graffiti prevention grant projects. Through the Working for Victoria Fund many local councils have also been funded to clean and maintain community areas and buildings, helping to remove graffiti. To help local government take action the government has also provided $69 000 towards the development of the Victorian graffiti register, to which Victorians can now easily report graffiti through a website and app. It will also enable councils to identify specific problem taggers or graffiti hotspots and report them to Victoria Police for further investigation. The register was introduced to councils in September 2020. There are already eight councils using the program, including my local council of Boroondara, with many others engaging with the provider and Graffiti Interest Network members. The government has also given communities more opportunities to remove graffiti through the community safety infrastructure grants, which have helped to upgrade safety in common areas. Some of the projects funded include graffiti-prevention work as well as better lighting, CCTV and other preventative measures to stop graffiti before it occurs. I look forward to the minister’s update on how the new murals at Grace Park will make a difference in helping to deter graffiti and other antisocial behaviour. RESPONSES Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating) (20:23): The member for Ripon raised a matter for the Minister for Housing regarding the Dunolly independent living housing project. The member for Nepean raised a matter for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change regarding the use of single-use plastics. The member for Gippsland East raised a matter for the Minister for Industry Support and Recovery regarding COVID-safe plan approvals. The member for Pascoe Vale raised a matter for the Minister for Education and invited him to visit Glenroy College to open the new school facilities. The member for South-West Coast raised a matter for the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services regarding Port Fairy SES funding. The member for Burwood raised a matter for the Minister for Mental Health, asking him to engage with mental health experts in the Burwood electorate. The member for Shepparton raised a matter for the Minister for Education regarding Greater Shepparton Secondary College and resourcing to prevent bullying and other antisocial behaviours. The member for Wendouree raised a matter for the Minister for Women regarding support for and improving the lives of girls in Ballarat. The member for Narracan raised a matter for the Premier regarding the membership of the Office of the Conservation Regulator’s reference group. And the member for Hawthorn raised a matter for the Minister for Crime Prevention in regard to grants to the Boroondara council. I will refer them appropriately. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The house now stands adjourned until tomorrow. House adjourned 8.25 pm.