PARLIAMENT OF VICTORIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

(HANSARD)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

FIFTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION

WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2021

hansard.parliament.vic.gov.au

By authority of the Victorian Government Printer

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

The ministry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joint committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads of parliamentary departments

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

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

Member Region Party Member Region Party

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

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

Party abbreviations

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

CONTENTS

ANNOUNCEMENTS Acknowledgement of country ...... 2413 PAPERS Papers ...... 2413 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices ...... 2413 MEMBERS STATEMENTS International Yoga Day ...... 2413 Eastern Victoria Region emergency response ...... 2414 Severe weather event ...... 2414 Northern Victoria Region community infrastructure ...... 2414 Sons of the West ...... 2415 Queen’s Birthday honours ...... 2415 Severe weather event ...... 2416 Ron Fenton ...... 2416 Jirrahlinga Koala and Wildlife Sanctuary ...... 2416 Severe weather event ...... 2416 Taskforce on Rehoming Pets ...... 2417 Western Metropolitan Region government grants ...... 2417 Liberal Party state treasurer ...... 2417 Queen’s Birthday honours ...... 2418 Victorian Football League ...... 2418 MOTIONS Planning scheme amendments ...... 2419 Alcohol and other drugs programs...... 2436 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Severe weather event ...... 2441 Game Management Authority ...... 2442 Ministers statements: agriculture training ...... 2443 COVID-19 ...... 2443 Severe weather event ...... 2444 Ministers statements: COVID-19 vaccination ...... 2445 Medicinal cannabis ...... 2446 Payroll tax ...... 2446 Ministers statements: Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee ...... 2448 Recreational boating registration and licensing ...... 2449 Glenormiston College ...... 2449 Ministers statements: severe weather event ...... 2451 Written responses ...... 2452 CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Western Victoria Region ...... 2452 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 2452 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 2452 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2453 South Eastern Metropolitan Region...... 2453 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 2453 Western Metropolitan Region ...... 2453 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2453 Northern Metropolitan Region ...... 2454 Western Victoria Region ...... 2454 Southern Metropolitan Region ...... 2454 Northern Victoria Region ...... 2454 MOTIONS Alcohol and other drugs programs...... 2455 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Notices of motion ...... 2467 BILLS Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021 ...... 2467 Second reading ...... 2467 STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Department of Health ...... 2487 14th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency ...... 2487 Legal and Social Issues Committee ...... 2488 Inquiry into the Closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd ...... 2488 Department of Premier and Cabinet ...... 2489 Report 2019–20 ...... 2489 Surf Coast planning ...... 2489 Petition ...... 2489 South West TAFE ...... 2490 Report 2020 ...... 2490 South West TAFE ...... 2491 Report 2020 ...... 2491 Cosgrove solar farm ...... 2492 Petition ...... 2492 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Written responses ...... 2493 ADJOURNMENT Shepparton sports and events centre ...... 2493 Homelessness ...... 2494 mRNA Victoria...... 2494 Craigieburn Road duplication ...... 2495 Trackless trams ...... 2495 Community sport funding ...... 2496 COVID-19 vaccination ...... 2496 Dromana quarry ...... 2497 Emergency services volunteers ...... 2497 Family violence male victims...... 2498 Severe weather event ...... 2498 COVID-19 ...... 2499 COVID-19 ...... 2500 Creative industries funding ...... 2500 Responses ...... 2501 WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES COVID-19 ...... 2502 Commercial passenger vehicle industry ...... 2503 Planning process ...... 2503 Camping regulation ...... 2503 Greater Geelong energy projects ...... 2504 Multipurpose taxi program ...... 2504

ANNOUNCEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2413

Wednesday, 23 June 2021

The PRESIDENT (Hon. N Elasmar) took the chair at 9.34 am and read the prayer. Announcements ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY The PRESIDENT (09:35): On behalf of the Victorian state Parliament I acknowledge the Aboriginal peoples, the traditional custodians of this land which has served as a significant meeting place of the First People of Victoria. I acknowledge and pay respect to the elders of the Aboriginal nations in Victoria past, present and emerging and welcome any elders and members of the Aboriginal communities who may visit or participate in the events or proceedings of the Parliament. Papers PAPERS Tabled by Clerk: Auditor-General’s Report on Responses to Performance Audit Recommendations: Annual Status Update, June 2021 (Ordered to be published). Parliamentary Budget Officer Act 2017—Operational Plan 2021–22: Priorities and protocols. Subordinate Legislation Act 1994— Documents under section 15 in respect of Statutory Rules Nos. 47 and 48. Legislative instruments and related documents under section 16B in respect of— Environment Reference Standard of 25 May 2021, under the Environment Protection Act 2017. Revocation of Notifiable Chemicals Order (Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds) of 25 May 2021, under the Environment Protection Act 1970. Revocation of Notifiable Chemicals Order (Chlorine Compounds) of 25 May 2021, under the Environment Protection Act 1970. Business of the house NOTICES Notices of motion given. Members statements INTERNATIONAL YOGA DAY Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (09:40): Last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the online International Yoga Day celebrations organised by Sakhi Saheli in collaboration with the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, ICCR, the High Commission of India in Singapore, Pragya and Active Mommies. Participants joined virtually from Australia, India and Singapore. International Yoga Day, which falls on 21 June every year, is about raising awareness worldwide of the many benefits of practising yoga. Recognising its universal appeal, on 11 December 2014 the United Nations proclaimed 21 June as the International Day of Yoga. Yoga is an ancient physical, mental and spiritual practice that originated in India. I helped Rajendra Yenkannamoole from Vasudeva Kriya Yoga school, Melbourne, in organising a yoga session in Victorian Parliament in 2019, but we could not do it here last year and this year due to the pandemic. This year International Yoga Day 2021 carries the theme ‘Yoga for wellbeing’ at a time when society is still recovering from the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. This highlights the urgent need to address the mental health damage of the pandemic in addition to the physical health aspects. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2414 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

The message of yoga in promoting both the physical and mental wellbeing of humanity has never been more relevant. The Sakhi Saheli members, being collaborative in their approach, are encouraging young mothers to be active through programs of their partnering organisation Active Mommies. It was fantastic to join Sujata Cowlagi from Pragya, who guided us virtually in doing a session of deep relaxation technique. I want to thank Nidhi Yogi, Sujata Cowlagi, Isha Bali and Neeti Malviya for their hard work and leadership. This exceptional health initiative is essential in getting through the COVID-19 pandemic together with the community. EASTERN VICTORIA REGION EMERGENCY RESPONSE Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (09:41): Today I just want to talk about what has gone on in Eastern Victoria. Eastern Victoria over the last few years has gone through quite a few disasters. We have had fires, we have had floods and we have also had damaging winds. Ms Patten: And pestilence? Mr BOURMAN: We are short on pestilence, Ms Patten, but tomorrow is another day. Emergency services have continually gone above and beyond, and just when they get on top of one issue they are having to deal with another one. But they and the volunteers and just the general community, when something happens, roll up their sleeves and they just get it done. Volunteers have always been absolutely amazing, from providing food, shelter and clothing right up to the timber workers who have been providing their equipment and time to clear the roads and properties of all the countless fallen trees. What are we going to do without them? I am still trying to make sure that does not happen. But again the people of Eastern Victoria have shown their considerable resilience, and we are now fixing what has fallen down and cutting the trees off the roads and all that. I am just going to continue to work with the government to make sure as much support as possible in whatever form is possible can be given to the people of Eastern Victoria to get through this as soon as possible. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (09:43): Today I want to draw the chamber’s and the community’s attention to the botched response to the disasters that we have faced in recent weeks and particularly the disaster in the Dandenongs. It is incomprehensible that this government has so badly botched the response to this terrible storm, the falling down of trees and the loss of power, with the government initially underestimating massively the time that would be required to restore electricity to those houses and people across the Dandenongs. My family grew up in that area, and I know much of that area very well, and I just cannot believe that the government has so disastrously and poorly managed this response. I think people in the hills have got every reason to be angry. They have got every reason to say that James Merlino, the Acting Premier, and their local member in many cases, has actually failed comprehensively to stand up for them and protect them at the time of their greatest need. And it is wrong that he is so weak and poor in his response. It is wrong that he is not standing up for his community in a comprehensive way. This is typical of this government, though. I mean, you look at the COVID response that has been comprehensively botched, with the failures on hotel quarantine. And still we cannot hear from the Premier about the texts between him and his chief of staff. NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (09:44): On Thursday, 17 June, together with Gannawarra shire mayor, Charlie Gillingham, I started by visiting Atkinson Park in Kerang’s Sir John Gorton precinct to announce $1 million in funding from the Andrews Labor government’s community sports infrastructure stimulus program. MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2415

It will go towards a new all-abilities play space complete with skate park, playground and more. Atkinson Park is Kerang’s major centre for family- and youth-oriented outdoor fun, and this grant will transform this precinct for the future. Later that day, and again with Mayor Gillingham, I was delighted to get to Quambatook and announce $2 050 000 from the regional infrastructure fund stimulus round for the— Members interjecting. Mr GEPP: President, I cannot even hear myself. I am sorry. The PRESIDENT: I was going to interrupt, Mr Gepp. Can you please stop the clock? It is not on. Mr Gepp to continue. Mr GEPP: Thank you, President. For the long-awaited Quambatook weir pool. The development of the weir pool will create significant tourism opportunities that generate substantial local employment and transform the livability of Quambatook and the Avoca River. My thanks to Ken Espagne and his daughter Chelle in the Quambatook weir pool working group for their many years of advocacy and dedication. Finally, on Saturday I spent the day in Birchip, where I announced as part of the regional infrastructure fund stimulus round that Buloke shire will receive $2.6 million to deliver the Buloke play spaces trail—involving the construction of five destination play spaces in Berriwillock, Birchip, Charlton, Donald and Wycheproof, so clearly it overlaps my electorate and the electorate of Western Victoria— followed by a visit to the Birchip Recreation Reserve, where I joined members of the footy and netball club before their clash with archrivals Charlton to officially open the facilities upgrade made possible by a $400 000 investment package from the government. SONS OF THE WEST Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (09:46): I speak today about the Sons of the West, and that is run by the Western Bulldogs Community Foundation in partnership with local councils and the community health services across Victoria. Now, Sons of the West is a free 10-week health program for men, whether they support the Bulldogs or not. Participants learn about health, getting active, making new friends and being involved in their local community. They learn about health with experts covering topics including nutrition, mental health, gender equality and masculinity. They get active with a range of exercises to meet everybody’s fitness levels. They get involved with a community of great people and meet other local guys, and they get plenty of support along the way. The 2021 program has already been successfully completed by four participants across a number of council areas in Melbourne’s west and Victoria, including Ballarat, Brimbank, Hobsons Bay, Maribyrnong, Melton and Wyndham. The feedback about these programs has been very positive, and there have been improvements to physical and mental health for all participants and all those men. New programs will be commencing in July or August of 2021 in Horsham and Whittlesea, so go the Bulldogs, and hopefully we have got the flag in 2021. QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY HONOURS Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:48): I just want to comment on and congratulate two people who received honours in the latest awards list, and as many members have indicated in the chamber this week, it has been very difficult to obviously acknowledge all of those people who have received awards. The two people that I particularly want to cite today are Trent Smyth, who received an award as the secretary of the consular corps for the work that he has done in that diplomatic space— he has been a remarkable contributor to Victoria’s advancement through his work with the consulate corps—and the other person is Neale Daniher, who, given the circumstances of his own personal life and the challenges that MND has had for him, has actually turned and provided extraordinary inspiration to the rest of the community with the work that he is doing to raise funds to fight MND. We obviously have the Big Freeze, which is now an annual event at the football each year, raising MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2416 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 millions of dollars towards research into MND, and already there are starting to be some scientific breakthroughs that suggest that perhaps the journey for people in the future might not be anywhere near as difficult as it has been for Neale. Those two people exemplify many others who are great contributors to our community and deserve their recognitions on this occasion. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (09:50): I rise to update the house on my recent visit post the recent storms in Eastern Victoria Region and also in my own region, Eastern Metropolitan Region. I visited last Sunday the Maroondah SES and also the Manningham SES to speak to volunteer emergency services workers about their efforts in assisting Victorians in my region recovering from the recent storms. It seems like particularly in Maroondah, which is bordering Ms Shing’s electorate of Eastern Victoria, they were also severely impacted by the recent storms, with many trees down, power outages and just general storm damage and tree damage from the extreme winds and weather event. But it was good to see the tireless efforts of the SES workers improving things for constituents and ensuring that they are getting their power back on and trees are being removed. I just want to express a great debt of gratitude to those SES workers, who tirelessly turn up at all hours and assist us in getting things back on track. Likewise the Manningham SES. It is really interesting. Not only were they attending to storm damage but also river rescues—things like people deciding to go out on swollen rivers in kayaks, which is never a good idea because in stormwaters there can be surges. It is incredibly dangerous. These sorts of actions put our volunteer workers in great danger, but again I just want to pay an enormous debt of gratitude and thank them very much for their efforts. RON FENTON Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (09:51): Ron Fenton was a man who epitomised what it means to be an advocate. He suffered many trials and tribulations through his life that ultimately led him down a path that saw him help many people. As I have spoken previously about in this place, Ron recently passed away after a long battle with cancer. His advocacy to use dogs as a means to assist people with post-traumatic stress injury and other mental injuries will be his lasting legacy. I was so very proud to see that Ron was posthumously awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the Queen’s Birthday honours. Ron knew of this before he passed, and knowing him he would have been very proud and extremely humbled. It is hard to think of someone more deserving of this award. JIRRAHLINGA KOALA AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Mr GRIMLEY: On another note, Jirrahlinga Koala and Wildlife Sanctuary at Barwon Heads is a hidden gem in my region of Western Victoria. Jirrahlinga offers visitors a chance to get up close and personal with Australian wildlife whilst also contributing to the care and reintegration of injured native Australian animals. They also do an amazing job in supporting and educating children in many life skills. Founder Tehree Gordon has been working tirelessly since 1975 rehabilitating and protecting injured wildlife and, like many regional organisations, Jirrahlinga has been affected by COVID-19 and the lack of international tourism. Jirrahlinga is calling on Victorians to have a Vic-cation and visit the sanctuary. As Victorian restrictions are easing, there has never been a better time to visit the regions and support regional organisations and businesses. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (09:53): I rise, like many have in this chamber, to pay tribute to all of the volunteers and the community members who have been so spirited and strong during the terrible storms throughout the east, in our seats of Eastern Victoria and Eastern Metro. Last week I had the privilege of meeting many of these people in the township of Yarram, where I was escorted around by the wonderful mayor, Cr Garry Stephens, who is such a local hero. I was able to meet with the SES, who had extraordinary tales of bravery and commitment right through the night clearing trees, getting ambulances through and helping particularly those isolated and vulnerable elderly people who had lost power, all the while with huge hearts and huge smiles on their faces—extraordinary people. I had the MEMBERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2417 privilege of meeting with a group of women at the neighbourhood house who had been cooking meals for everybody who had lost their power, organising showers, which we saw in the media recently, making quilts for people who were cold and having a place of real community heart that people can go to and feel welcome in times of trouble. I am really, like we always are, blown away by the SES, the CFA and our other local volunteers who do so much for their communities and are really the heart and soul of what community is about. TASKFORCE ON REHOMING PETS Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:54): I am delighted to give an update on the Taskforce on Rehoming Pets, which I am very proud to be the chair of. This task force, which was announced by the government following a unanimous vote on my motion to improve the treatment of companion animals in the chamber last year, is well into consultation. Through an online survey we asked people involved in the rehoming of shelter, pound and research facility animals to let us know what support they need and how we can improve rehoming pathways in Victoria. It has already received a whopping 1716 responses, and these numbers continue to grow each day. This overwhelming amount of feedback demonstrates how important this issue is to the community and the appetite to improve transparency and survival rates for companion animals. Soon we will begin site visits to shelters and rescue organisations, and I am looking forward to hearing more about their work. A big thankyou to my fellow task force members, Maree Edwards and Gary Maas, for their ongoing work with me on this important reform. I look forward to delivering an interim report to the minister at the end of next month and providing further updates to the house. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION GOVERNMENT GRANTS Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (09:56): Fourteen grassroots sports clubs and two veteran support organisations in the west are amongst a group of successful applicants this year for over $100 000 in Victorian government grants. Congratulations to the 14 successful sports clubs. Applicants from the Western Metro Region will share more than $23 000 under the Victorian government’s sporting grant program. These programs help provide clubs with new uniforms and equipment; support for training coaches, officials and volunteers; support for improving club operational effectiveness; and support to help sports clubs to get back on their feet after the pandemic and to enrich their local communities. These grants help make community sports more inclusive and accessible and build sustainable sport and recreation and volunteer opportunities to increase local participation in communities as the coronavirus restrictions are lifted. Congratulations also to the two veteran support organisations, Bacchus Marsh RSL sub-branch in Melton and Doutta Galla Aged Services, who through the veteran capital works grant program will receive a combined $70 000 in grant support. This grants funding includes providing mental health services to support veterans and their families and building renovations to improve accessibility of buildings and provide quality amenities. Congratulations to all the grant recipients. It is great to see such community engagement initiatives to help enrich the lives of people of the Western Metro Region. LIBERAL PARTY STATE TREASURER Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:57): Recently the Liberals bet big on some bizarre conspiracy theories, but we did not realise how much appetite they have for betting big. They like to think that they are the party of responsible fiscal management, but their own state treasurer is a professional poker player—talk about betting big. In fact Owen Guest loves gambling so much he posted on his Facebook page that the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence presents an opportunity for Victoria to license more casinos—more casinos! Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, this is a bizarre conspiracy theory. He knows well he should be doing this in a more proper way. It is absolutely disgraceful. The corruption at the casino is linked to Labor. MEMBERS STATEMENTS 2418 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Mr TARLAMIS: On the point of order, President, as Mr Davis would be well aware—he has been here for quite a while—a member can make a statement on any matter of concern or interest, and I should be allowed to continue uninterrupted. Mr Davis: On the point of order, President, there is a right of reply, too, for people who have been maligned by a corrupt party. The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. Mr TARLAMIS: He pitches that he is a wealth risk manager, although it seems that particularly relates to his poker hand. Unfortunately he is not very good at it. According to publicly available records, he was ranked only 1114th in 2017. After Mr Guest was elected treasurer in 2019 you would think that his focus would have been on rebuilding the party’s finances after the Damien Mantach $1.55 million fraud. No. Mr Guest’s first priority: Vegas, baby. That is right; he was off to Las Vegas straight after being elected—to an event in 2019, World Series of Poker, where he came 414th. Is Mr Guest what the Liberals need to guide their financial future? His CV shows that when not busy managing his risk he is a company director for a not-for-profit sector, yet ASIC searches show that the only directorship he holds is of a company which is a trustee for a unit trust. With the Liberal Party busy pushing around funds between its various trust accounts and the sale of its building, it looks like it has got the perfect manager in Owen Guest. Indeed it looks like he is betting the house on it. QUEEN’S BIRTHDAY HONOURS Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:00): I would like to congratulate some of the amazing and inspiring women in my electorate who received honours this Queen’s Birthday for their significant services to the Victorian community. Glenyys Romanes and Sue Woodward have been made Members of the Order of Australia. Glenyys, a previous member of this place, has committed her life to serving the community, whether through her 50-year association with Oxfam, her work on Moreland council or her work in the Brunswick community. Glenyys has had such a profound effect on this state. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Victorian Council of Social Service board with Sue Woodward and seeing up close her passion for the community sector, especially not-for-profit law. Her work advocating for clear but strong regulation for not-for-profit organisations has resulted in achievements so important to the sector, including the establishment of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. I would like to also acknowledge the following outstanding women from my electorate for being awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia: Jill Prior, in recognition of her work with the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and Djirra and as founder of the principal legal office at the Law and Advocacy Centre for Women; Janet Jukes, for her lifetime commitment to LGBTIQ advocacy, from being the co-founder and founding co-convener of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, now the Victorian Pride Lobby, to her current role as president of Thorne Harbour Health; Liberty Sanger, recognising her dedication to advocating for gender equality and safe workplaces; and of course my friend Casey Nunn for her commitment to the CFA and Ambulance Victoria as well as her service to the Hume community as mayor and deputy mayor. Well done to all recipients and congratulations. VICTORIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (10:01): The 2020 VFL season was cancelled and the 2021 VFL season has been significantly disrupted, especially in light of the fact that the VFL has moved towards a tri-state model. These border disruptions have had a considerable impact on and off the field. That is why I am so pleased to say the Victorian government is giving $1 million to help strengthen Victorian VFL clubs and support AFL pathways. Six standalone clubs, including Port Melbourne Football Club in my electorate, will receive $130 000 in funding under this program. Another three AFL-affiliated clubs, such as Sandringham Football Club—or the Zebras, as they are known locally—will receive $65 000. The funding will assist clubs with interstate travel, with COVID-safe protocols and with other expenses that they will incur. VFL clubs are a pillar of our MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2419 community and a pillar of Victorian football. That is why I am proud that the government is getting behind them. They are an important part of the local community. I am proud that our government is supporting these fantastic clubs and other clubs in the VFL system. Motions PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (10:02): I am pleased to move:

That this house: (1) notes that: (a) the Minister for Planning on 25 March 2021 gazetted and on 29 April 2021 tabled amendment VC194 to the Victoria planning provisions (VPP); (b) amendment VC194 inserts two new provisions at clauses 52.30 and 52.31 that facilitate state projects and local government projects; (c) the Minister for Planning on 14 May 2021 gazetted and on 25 May 2021 tabled amendment VC198 to the VPP; (d) amendment VC198 introduces new provisions at clauses 52.35, ‘Major road projects’, and 52.36, ‘Rail projects’, and makes other changes related to delivery of projects carried out by or on behalf of Major Road Projects Victoria and Rail Projects Victoria; (e) both amendment VC194 and amendment VC198 diminish notification requirements for local communities and remove appeal rights from local communities; and (2) pursuant to section 38(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, revokes amendments VC194 and VC198 to the Victoria planning provisions. Now, I want to be absolutely clear with the chamber: I am pro-development. I am pro-activity in our state. I am determined to see more happen in our state, not less. But that does not mean an open cheque or an open slather approach to development in our state. We have seen under this government rights stripped away. We have seen the checks and balances removed. I say whilst on one hand I am pro- development on the other hand I want to see the quality of life in Melbourne and our regional cities and so forth protected. I want to see the quality of life strengthened. I want to see the amenity of our suburbs, the transport in our suburbs, the facilities in our suburbs improved. And I want to see that done in a way that is in sympathy with local communities. I want to see that done in a way that ensures that local communities have their say and are sovereign in planning their own futures. I mean, the truth of the matter is in our state we need to have an arrangement in place where local communities can set out their objectives, their planning future, and actually make sure that they can, within state parameters, actually see the development and shape of their communities framed in a way that they are happy with and that their community is supportive of. It is not for Daniel Andrews, it is not for his planning minister, it is not for an arrogant long-term government in power now for 17 of the last 21 years—and we know what happens with governments like this: they become tired and corrupt, and that is what is increasingly happening with this government. The decisions that are being made under some of these new planning provisions are decisions that should concern Victorians. Victorians want to see open and transparent planning processes. They want to see stripped- down and fast planning processes but not planning processes that remove the checks and the balances and controls that make sure we get the outcomes that we want. Communities know when things are being imposed on them, and they know what is wrong in their suburbs. They know when down the streets in our suburbs the quality and amenity are being savaged under this government over 17 of the last 21 years. The short period that we had neighbourhood residential protections in did help in some of our suburbs, but it was overwhelmed by the changes that have been made by this government in the free-for-all that has been put in place. Now, these new provisions are part of a sweep that has occurred, not only VC187 and VC190, which say it is public housing open season for Daniel Andrews to put it anywhere he wants. Anywhere at all MOTIONS 2420 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 in Victoria that he wants it, he can force it into now against the wishes of the local community and without proper consultation or listening to local communities. They want to see public housing, they want to see more social housing, but they want to frame it in a way that is suitable for their communities in densities that are appropriate to their communities and where the supports and the health services and the education services and the transport services are following. But I also say, when you look at these new amendments, 194 and 198, there is a further sweep of power to this government. This government has not only determined to force through things by declaring things ‘state projects’—and these declarations of state projects will see the normal checks and balances swept aside, and I say that this is wrong. I say that this is not a balanced approach to development, this is not a balanced and controlled and managed process of development. This tilts the balance far too far in the other direction. It says that it is now open season, and let us be clear: the new provisions in 170 allow massive opening to occur. On the new provisions in 198, and I am going to quote some bits here:

The amendment introduces two new particular provisions at clauses 52.35 and 52.36 for major road and rail projects carried out by or on behalf of Major Road Projects Victoria (MRPV) and Rail Projects Victoria (RPV); exempts the Head, Transport for Victoria from the permit requirement to create or alter access to, or subdivide land adjacent to applicable roads … exempts the Head, Transport for Victoria from the permit requirement for roadworks on flood-affected land to the satisfaction of the relevant floodplain management authority— another government body—

… replaces references to ‘VicRoads’ or ‘Roads Corporation’ with ‘Head, Transport for Victoria’ … and that is unexceptionable. This follows changes made in the Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 and is consistent with section 318 of the Transport Integration Act 2010. VC198 amends clause 37.03, ‘Urban floodway zone’; 44.03, ‘Floodway overlay’; 44.04, ‘Land subject to inundation overlay’; and so on. When it comes to major projects, under 52.35 it says consultation requirements and reporting consultations with public authorities and municipal councils can be waived or varied by the Minister for Planning—just swept aside. The traditional checks and balances and pre-commencement requirements and reporting can be varied or waived by the Minister for Planning. He can do that in his office just up the road here in Nicholson Street. He can do it on a Sunday afternoon. He does not need to talk to anyone. He just signs a piece of paper and it is all swept aside; all the longstanding protections are gone. On rail projects it says consultation requirements for reporting, including consultations with relevant public authorities and municipal councils, can be waived or varied by the Minister for Planning unilaterally. He can do this unilaterally, again sweeping aside the checks and balances. Pre- commencement requirements and reporting can be varied or waived by the Minister for Planning under 52.36-7. These are frightening new powers that are being introduced. These are frightening new powers that are being put in place. These are frightening new powers that will weaken the checks and balances. I have spoken to councils across the state about this. Many are very, very concerned, and increasingly concerned, about these provisions. Amendment VC198 introduces new particular provisions 52.35 and 52.36. I have talked about that. These changes, as I said, will weaken what we have known over a long period. Councils have said to me, in the case of the mayor of Whitehorse, they strongly support the push for COVID recovery but COVID recovery under these provisions goes to 2025. These planning provisions sweep aside checks and balances as far out as 2025. That is a long, long way out—four years hence—and still the government has given itself these powers to sweep aside the checks and balances. These provisions are unbalanced. These provisions are too much and too strong. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2421

Whitehorse Council supports some aspects of these new provisions:

… Council is concerned that local government involvement and community consultation is being diminished and in some instances stripped away. I think that this is a very fair point. The mayor talks about the state projects and how the criteria for achieving state project status is broad and open to interpretation:

A more rigorous and transparent process should be implemented. In this regard, Council is concerned that there does not appear to be a requirement for the minister, or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to publicly release a report or statement which outlines the reasons and justification for each project that is granted ‘state project’ status. This lack of transparency and accountability is of significant concern to Council. That is the City of Whitehorse making it very clear that there are real concerns about these provisions. It continues:

It is unclear exactly what extent of private funding and involvement is possible under State Project provision and the clause 52.30 Assessment Guideline does not appear to provide further clarity on this aspect. Council seeks further information on this aspect. There is a lack of clarity regarding the consultation requirements stipulated at Clause 52.30-5. This section of the Clause refers to consultation ‘before the use or development commences’ and not prior to the approval of the state project. Again this is a sleight of hand. What is happening here is they can start the project and then begin the consultation. We have seen this with rail projects across the state. Every local community that has been rolled over by this government understands that the consultation process under Jacinta Allan is a complete and utter sham. It is a farce. They roll people over. They have a model in mind, they go through a faux consultation process and the outcomes are poorer than should be. Major projects of this type—generally supported by both sides of politics, generally supported across the community in principle—are being botched because the outcomes are much less satisfactory than should be achieved. And part of achieving better outcomes is actually listening to communities, listening to councils, working with councils and working with communities. The example I have used in this chamber recently is Lorne Parade Reserve. In the 1970s the then state government bureaucrats tried to sell that piece of government land. It is actually education land—that is the strict ownership of it—right next to the rail corridor. They tried to sell it. One Sir Rupert Hamer, then Premier of the state, intervened personally. He went up there, he saw the land and he said, ‘We’re not going to sell it. I’m going to protect it’. In the 1980s the same bureaucrats came back to have another run at the land, and one Premier—and I will give her credit on this; many things I will not give her a credit on, but I will give her a credit on this—Joan Kirner intervened and said, ‘You will not sell that land. You will not sell that public open space in the middle of Surrey Hills there where there’s dense housing. This land is important for community. It is important for schoolkids’. I am informed that it is actually a safety zone for the school at the moment, but leaving that aside, it is an important patch of public open land. Dick Hamer saved it. Joan Kirner saved it. Bernie is rolling over there; he is sort of shocked. But this is actually true; this is bipartisan Premiers saving that land. And then another Hamer, Paul Hamer, is going to get rid of it—shocking. This is the bloke who claimed he was related to Dick Hamer—extraordinary. He is not related but did claim that to people before the election. But leaving that aside— Ms Terpstra interjected. Mr DAVIS: Yes, he did. He actually did—extraordinary. No, he is not related. Ms Terpstra interjected. Mr DAVIS: Well, he has got you hoodwinked on that. My point here is that the consultation process on these projects has been very poor and we have no reason to believe that the Level Crossing MOTIONS 2422 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Removal Project or the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority have the capacity to act fairly and honestly and actually make sure that the community’s outcomes are right. They do not seem to have that capacity. I do not trust them to do that. Many other people do not trust them to do that. I only picked that one example because it is live at the moment, but I could go through many others. We have no reason to trust this government with these stripped-down processes, and it is not good practice in any event. I say we want faster, streamlined planning processes, but that is not the same as an open cheque. It is not the same as open slather. It is not the same as giving Dick Wynne, Jacinta Allan and others carte blanche to do precisely what they want. I say the community has a right to have its say in its local area, and that is why we are seeking to revoke these planning provisions today. That is why we are seeking to reel these things back in, so that local communities and councils remain responsible for their future, for their outcomes, so that they can control their future and it is not done from Spring Street, or Nicholson Street in this case. It is not done by Daniel Andrews’s fiat, as he makes a phone call from his home; it is not done by the decisions of ministers that are responsible for these major projects; it is done with a proper process. One of the farcical things about this is the slowest path in the planning process system in this state is Minister Dick Wynne’s desk. The planning amendments come to his desk and they stay there interminably sometimes. They stay there interminably. Mr Finn: They call him ‘Do-nothing Dick’. Mr DAVIS: That is why they call him ‘Do-nothing Dick’. But the truth of the matter is, if you want to move development in this state, you have a proper process, you get on with it, you actually have the proper inputs and the decisions are made, but they are made in full knowledge. They are made with local communities having their say. They are made with local councils having long-term planning input into what is going on. They are not made as a fiat decision by Richard Wynne up at Nicholson Street, waving over what is going to happen to a local community. Then what happens is the community sucks it up and they have no control and no say. The issue here is, in the case of 194, there is actually the ability to even exempt the notification requirement. You do not even have to tell people the development is happening, let alone consult. You do not have to tell them. They can wake up and find there are bulldozers working next door. The planning approvals have all been swept through by Dick Wynne. They have all just been swept through. You turn around, wake up and the bulldozers are at work, and you say, ‘What on earth is happening here? What on earth is happening?’. Ms Taylor interjected. Mr DAVIS: Ms Taylor, you perhaps were not here when this happened at Ormond when the state government gave planning approvals for the creation of a pad over the Ormond station. Ormond station—started by the previous government, supported by everyone—was a rail-under-road solution, but people looked out one day and there was the construction starting on a huge concrete pad. The council did not even know. The City of Glen Eira had not been told. I mean, bizarre, and they wanted a 13-storey building on top of the rail corridor. Now, I am happy to use rail land in a constructive way, but I do not think you should surprise the council and the local community as they look out in little old Ormond and they look at this. Why would you trust this set of bureaucrats to behave properly with this background, with this history of misbehaviour, arrogant behaviour and the shocking outcomes that are achieved in many cases—the suboptimal outcomes. I say proper, swift process but with proper inputs—councils, communities, government working together with communities to actually get that outcome that we all want. That means more development, but it means better development. It does not mean development which is pushed, which is overridden into communities and which is done in a way that sees a poor outcome for local communities. So an increasingly arrogant government here under Daniel Andrews is rolling over local communities and wants more and more and more power. VC170, 187, 190, 194, 198 all MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2423 tear power from local communities, they all tear power from local councils and they all give Daniel Andrews and his ministers more power, more control, more leverage. The one thing I want to say in the final bit is that, you know, more speed is a noble objective, but it needs to be balanced with better outcomes. And the fast development track—I am going to use one example that is just in my area now that is live, down at 196 High Street in Windsor. Council opposed the planning approach; it went to VCAT; VCAT knocked it off. VCAT knocked it off, but do you know what? It is coming back. It is coming back over here through a sneaky channel over at the side. The government said, ‘Better, faster, smooth, fast-track development’, but fast-track development should not be designed to override the genuine community processes. I mean, the government cannot even accept the umpire’s decision of VCAT. Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, President, I draw your attention to the fact Mr Davis is pointing aggressively in the chamber, and I think he should stop that. Mr DAVIS: I am very happy to desist, President, and just in conclusion say I am heavily pro- development, but I want that balanced by quality of life and amenity outcomes. That is critical. Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:23): That was quite entertaining from Mr Davis— very, very entertaining. The only thing is, I do not think he believes in anything he said. I mean, he is suddenly the champion of planning, community organisations’ rights, councils’ rights, development— you know, he has suddenly become the champion. But he made a few comments about, ‘You can’t do things too quickly; you can’t do things’. I mean, we actually saw how quickly you got things done when you were in government between 2010 and 2014. We experienced that. You were very slow. You did nothing really. And you are talking about development. Do you want to talk about Docklands? Let us talk about that—but we will not. The problem I think with Mr Davis’s definition of ‘consultation’ is he thinks his own definition will apply to everyone. His definition is, ‘I’ll consult with myself in the morning, I’ll look at myself in the mirror, I’ll make my own decision about whatever I want to do and I’ll just go and do it. I don’t talk to anyone else, because I don’t need to.’ We can ask his own colleagues. I do not think he consults with them about what he does on a daily basis when the house is sitting. So, Mr Davis, I am getting really amused. With revocation motion after revocation motion after revocation motion, you have become the champion of it, and there is only one thing driving you: you want the state to come to a standstill. You do not want us to deliver anything. You do not want us to deliver level crossings. You do not want us to basically get the state going again. I do not know if you have noticed, but we do have a pandemic and we are trying to get the economy going, and we are actually not doing a bad job. We are not doing a bad job in getting things back on track after a horrible 12 or 15 months. The reason these provisions were put in place was, yes, to fast- track some projects, to make sure we can deliver these projects and we can create jobs. But it is not about taking away the rights of people and basically to not go and consult with councils or even communities. I think let us call it what it is from your end: basically if you can get your way, we will not do anything. We will not be doing any project in Victoria, full stop, and basically it will be a complete standstill. That is what you want. You do not want any progress. You talked about how these provisions will take away rights. You are absolutely wrong. They do not. There is the same appeal process and consultation, and in fact these provisions are still subject to restrictions and to obligations on all these project delivery organisations to actually go and consult the community and local government. It does not take that right from them at all. Let us talk about what these projects are about. We are talking about state projects and major roads, and some of these projects are supported by your counterpart in the federal government. But obviously on community consultation it is, as it says, expressly clear that these provisions require public MOTIONS 2424 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 consultation, including consultation with local council and public authorities, before a project starts. These requirements are drafted in the provisions. The project must also demonstrate how they can respond to matters raised by the community. But Mr Davis talked about how because he did not like a particular design himself that project should not go ahead. I mean, we have heard here about sky rail, how the sky was going to fall, for the last two, three or four years. Well, that issue now is not an issue. Everyone is happy with it. Mr Davis, yes, basically having these provisions will fast-track some of these projects. Some of these projects might take six to 12 months to actually get off the ground. Under the new provision it might take a lesser period. We are not going to apologise for that, because we want to kickstart the economy. That is why we are spending a lot of money—billions of dollars, along with the commonwealth government—to make sure we restart the economy and we get projects going. Now, I agree on one thing with Mr Davis. Yes, we should not do these things at the expense of safety or totally ignoring the community and council. We need to work within the current system. We need to make sure we do consult with people, we do work with local governments and we do make sure the amenity is not affected. We need to make sure these projects are delivered not at the expense of other people’s rights. But if that means that we need to do it a bit faster, cut some red tape and fast-track these projects, it is a bit like with the level crossings. I mean, if you want to go and, for example, do a level crossing project one at a time on a particular line, and there are about half a dozen of them, it does not make sense. What makes sense is you do the whole line and the whole six, for example, in one hit as one application. That is sort of cutting red tape. It does not mean you cut corners. None of these provisions are put in place to cut corners. I do not think Mr Davis has made the case for that apart from one single thing in his mind: ‘If I can actually stop anything, if I can stop the West Gate project, if I can stop the north-east project, if I can stop the level crossing project, if I can stop all these projects, I will do that tomorrow’. That is why Mr Davis has been known as the ‘revocation man’. Basically his biggest achievement in this house and the previous Parliament has been basically putting revocation motion after revocation motion. Let us talk about some of these, just a quick sample in the last 3 minutes I have. What are the projects likely to be affected should Mr Davis be successful in his motion? In Werribee zoo, for example, we just invested $84 million. That is in my electorate. That project, basically, would be delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed. I do not want it delayed. I wanted the $84 million invested there yesterday. That project will provide a new way for visitors to access and experience the zoo, including uninterrupted 360-degree views of the zoo, and opportunities for visitors to interpret the wider Werribee Park heritage precinct and the Werribee River. This project is on the assessment pathway. So that is a particular project. I do not know what the argument is there. That project falls under that provision. But if Mr Davis gets his way, well, that is out—I mean, seriously. There is a long, long list of ambulance stations, and I will go through the list. There are about— Mr Davis interjected. Mr MELHEM: They are everywhere, and I will not name them. I am sure other speakers will go through them. It is all about how we can fast-track these processes and applications, and what is wrong with that? But no, we do not care about that, because Mr Davis is not satisfied. Good luck satisfying Mr Davis about anything. Good luck convincing Mr Davis about any project—anything—because if it is not his idea, it is a bad idea. If it is not David Davis’s idea, it is a bad idea and should not be considered or implemented. That is the whole problem. Mr Leane: Has he ever had an idea? Mr MELHEM: That is the problem, Mr Leane; I do not think he has many bright ideas. That is the problem. Mate, just get on with the program. Just get on with it. Victorians are screaming. People want jobs. People want more ambulance stations. People want more investment in the state. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2425

Mr Finn interjected. Mr MELHEM: Well, I will tell you, Mr Finn, my electorate— Mr Finn interjected. Mr MELHEM: And that is exactly my point, Mr Finn; thanks for raising this. If Mr Davis was successful in his various attempts to revoke everything, not much would be happening in my electorate. Not a single investment would happen in my electorate. Let me tell you, it will not. Nothing will happen. Get that right. Let me tell you, I stand here in my last 30 seconds proud of what the Andrews Labor government—what Premier Daniel Andrews—has done. I am looking forward to him coming back to the job on Monday next week to continue to lead the state to make sure we continue to deliver decent jobs and decent projects for Victoria instead of the horrible alternative: the do-nothing Liberal Party. Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (10:33): Thank you to the previous speakers. I rise to support Mr Davis’s motion to disallow VC194 and VC198. What these two amendments do is exactly what I have been opposing since I came into this place. And since then, what have we seen? Fast-tracking, ministerial call-ins, code assess—all removals of local planning power. Once again this government wants to remove power from local communities, and once again this government wants to funnel the power to the top—autocracy, not democracy. That is what it is about: autocracy in planning. I am worried, and I want to put on record today my concerns with these new planning investments, VC194 and VC198, written by the minister’s office, not by local responsible planning authorities. It is all centralised in the minister’s office. He makes the decisions. He can change the planning scheme at his whim. The first use of these powers strips away power from communities with respect to infrastructure projects. It does give councils some additional authority in certain narrow areas over local projects, but also written in there are anti-democratic powers. But the truth is overwhelmingly that councils are going to be overrun and overruled by the state government as it decides to use these extraordinary planning powers to favour certain pet projects. What this will mean is that local communities may well wake up, as Mr Davis has said, with the shock of a project being done on their doorstep, because this amendment, VC194, strips away the normal requirements for notification and third-party appeal rights. So the right to object is gone. The normal consultation requirements can be waived, and in fact it is entirely possible that people will wake up one day with bulldozers roaring nearby or possibly even next door on a project which they have not been consulted about at all and even the local council has been bypassed on. These huge and excessive powers are to be used by the current minister, and that use will mean that normal protections are being waived. The minister will be assumed to be the repository of all planning knowledge. He is meant to know better about the environment in that area than the locals are. He is meant to know more about local conditions and local amenity than locals are. They do not need to be consulted. We are going to lose more trees, like what happened with the North East Link. Planning powers and councils were not consulted. In Moreland, at Moreland station we lost trees there. Local opinions were not taken into account. The government’s Big Build program already threatens our declining quality of life here in Melbourne, and it threatens the environment. Now we can clearly see it is a big negative for democracy as well. The planning minister has the power of a medieval king, but for the kings of old their power has been devolved to Parliaments now that represent the people. But here, when I was young, the local council had those devolved powers from the planning minister. Since then all that power has been taken away from the councils and given to the minister, and here we have another planning amendment written by the planning minister that gives him complete power again over the council. Let’s dispense with messy democracy and government, fast-track everything and shift more power to the executive and MOTIONS 2426 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 unelected faceless bureaucrats; it’s easy to please the big donors that way. As I said, these amendments remove third-party appeal rights on projects and do away with community consultation, concentrating power in the hands of a few around the planning minister. I was at a rally at Markham estate a few weeks ago. Several hundred people attended. It was a really significant rally. The community were furious about the decision of the state government to override the City of Boroondara to give planning approvals for that very large housing estate on that site. It is much too big, in their opinion, it is much too tall, too intrusive, and yet the approvals have been pushed through by the government, overriding local community and the council. This is what we are seeing at Bills Street in Hawthorn. This is what we are seeing with level crossing removals at Surrey Hills and Mont Albert and what we are seeing at the Markham estate in Ashburton. All through my electorate, right down into Hampton, Brighton and Elsternwick, we have got overdevelopment going through. We have got ministerial call-ins. We have got government interventions on heights controls there, and I say local communities have a right to a say. They have a right to local democracy at the core of decision-making. I am very concerned about what the government is doing. The Boroondara Residents Action Group is fighting hard. There is overdevelopment going on, as I say, in Hampton, Brighton and Elsternwick. There is Heatherton too, where people are opposed to the stabling yards and the destruction of the green wedge there. That was just visited upon them. They have just been told, ‘You’re going to cop it; suck it up’. With VC198 the government is also waiving consultation across transport projects, waiving third- party appeal rights and even waiving the need to give basic information. That is what you would expect local communities to be at least provided with. I say it is draconian. This is extraordinary. This is a real winding back of local power and local democracy. It is an undemocratic move by a centralist, undemocratic government, a government that wants to completely dominate planning in this state. They think that they know better than local communities and they can roll over local communities. They think they can do it with impunity, and I say that communities increasingly will stand up and fight. Communities have had enough of the contempt, they have had enough of the push, they have had enough of the pressure. I support Mr Davis in objecting to these amendments. And I note, however, that it is easy to be in favour of democracy and local communities when you are in opposition, but I will be looking for the opposition to commit to restore more power to the local communities as they say they will do as part of their election promises at the next election. But most importantly I call on this government, our government, to reverse its autocratic approach to planning and development, and I call on the government to respect the important work our local governments do in representing their communities by returning planning power to local government and communities. I support the disallowance motion. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:40): I rise to make a contribution on Mr Davis’s revocation motion on the notice paper. The motion is about revoking amendments VC194 and VC198 to the Victorian planning provisions under section 38(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. I have had the benefit of listening to the contributions of Mr Davis, Mr Melhem and Mr Hayes. The government’s agenda is to roll out a range of infrastructure improvements. We heard Mr Melhem talk about the range of projects that are on the table and slated to be finalised in his region, the Western Metropolitan Region, and it is important to note that these projects are projects that people want. Melbourne is a growing city. Our population is increasing, and we need to ensure that we have road projects and roads are upgraded to accommodate the extra traffic. I note in the debate we have talked about ambulance stations, for example. Of course we need more ambulance stations to ensure that we can get people to hospitals in a timely way if they need it and all those sorts of things. It is easy to sort of dumb down this whole debate when we talk about planning. I mean, a lot of the stuff that is on the table for planning—if we actually allowed this motion, it would be economic vandalism to block access to infrastructure. This is about Victorians having access to the things they MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2427 need so that they can live good lives. Like I said, road, rail—there is a whole tranche of projects and a whole range of different ways, and some of them even at a local level. We have got small, medium and large projects. These are the sorts of projects that actually provide benefit—council projects that would be zoned for public use on land that would be owned by municipal councils; things like new maternal and child health facilities, for example, for new mothers in growth areas. Why would you want to drive for an hour to go and visit a child and maternal health clinic? Of course you want them in your local area and of course those things need to be built, and they need to be built in communities where they need them, not an hour away. It does not make any sense. Upgrades to parks—what we have learned through the pandemic recently is how important it is for people in local communities to have access to their local parks so they can sit in the fresh air and the sunshine in a socially distanced way. Sporting facilities are another thing. I have been able to go around my own region and announce some fabulous upgrades to sporting clubs and facilities. Some of them, I would have to say, would be probably some of the worst facilities I have seen, and I am really pleased to see them being upgraded. I actually went to a facility in my region the other day, and I looked up at the board. It was an athletics club, and there was Cathy Freeman’s name on the board and Kyle Vander-Kuyp’s. I mean, wow, how incredible. And to see the state of that club and to know that that club is going to receive funding and upgrades from this government is absolutely amazing. I remarked when we were doing that sod turn the other week that the dedication of local people to their sporting clubs is incredible, because turning up to that club day in, day out in its current state means that you are dedicated to your sport, because honestly it was not a very welcoming place. It was not warm, it was not inviting. It was just very old and outdated and past its time. So some of these upgrades to sporting facilities are incredibly overdue and are very welcomed by local communities. I would really like to understand how the community might view some of the things that Mr Davis has been saying about needing to block things and not allow things and having this kind of weird and wacky overview about planning, because clearly these sorts of upgrades are actually helping local people to stay in their local communities and play local sport and engage with local communities, and that goes into health and wellbeing as well, so kids, adults, whatever. Again it is a simplistic way of looking at all of these things. Things like libraries—we saw during the pandemic the important role that libraries played, and we saw some fantastic initiatives by librarians where they said, ‘Okay, we’re closed for COVID, but you know what? We’ll arrange to have books delivered. You can go online and access whatever books you want and we’ll get them delivered to you so that you don’t go without your reading material’, because not everyone likes to read stuff online, which is fair enough. People like to have paper and books in their hands. That is important for people’s wellbeing. Childcare and kindergartens: we know this government is making unprecedented investment in early childhood education because we know how important that is. So we need to build new kindergartens to accommodate three- and four-year-old fully funded kinder. We need to employ more kindergarten teachers—and there is child care as well. They are all the things that we are talking about at a local, grassroots level that will really make a huge difference to people’s lives. They are just some of the small things. The list is incredibly, incredibly long. There are a range of projects in my region and, as I said, also not in my region—again, particularly in growth areas. Also in regional and rural Victoria there are a range of projects that are happening, again to ensure that our rural and regional Victorians also have access to the roads that they need, to the facilities they need. Again, those opposite just kind of conflate everything and say, ‘Oh, no, this is all bad’. I think the remarks made earlier by Mr Melhem were that it seems that with anything that this government wants to propose the only alternative the opposition has is for them to say, ‘No’—just ‘No’. Anything we propose, it is ‘No. We can’t have that because there’s something wrong with it. It’s bad, it’s no good’. But again, there is no alternative, no viable alternative. And we all know what happened when this mob opposite was in government. They did nothing on infrastructure. They did nothing to upgrade anything—roads, trains, major infrastructure. And then the one thing they did propose was a complete MOTIONS 2428 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 and utter dud. Was it east–west link or something like that? That was a complete dud. The business case did not stack up and it went nowhere, and then they try and re-float that as some kind of miracle so people are going to vote for them. I do not know. I was sort of heckling Mr Davis across the chamber when he was speaking before on things like Fishermans Bend. I mean, please, bring Matthew Guy back as the planning minister! Please, let us have that happen right now, because we know what happened under that! Fishermans Bend was a complete and utter disaster. Mr Davis interjected. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Gepp): Can we have a bit of order in the chamber, please. Please continue, Ms Terpstra, without assistance. Ms TERPSTRA: Yes. Thank you, Acting President. I would like to be heard in silence. And I am not aggressively pointing—for the record—over here either. Nice try. Again, these projects are critically important. We have got level crossing removals. But certainly all of the planning schemes and processes that are in place are critically important. Again, the conflation about ‘Oh, this is all bad. We’re going to take everything away’ is not going to happen at all. Again, it is just a complete conflation. I mean, the level crossing removal projects have had multiple benefits, actually, because they mean that with our trains we can get more services. It means our roads are less congested. But, again, those opposite want to go, ‘No. No’. What they want to do is talk about sky rail or they want to talk about, ‘Oh, this shouldn’t have been a trench; this should have been elevated’. Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. We get engineers who make these assessments. It is not like we are just making it up. And particularly after projects like sky rail you get the local community saying, ‘Oh, look at that’, afterwards, ‘We’ve got a great park. We’ve got a great cycling track. We’ve got wonderful amenities underneath these sorts of projects. And, guess what, we can’t even hear the trains. It’s more quiet than it was before. How amazing’. So again, it is all gloom and doom over there from those opposite: ‘All bad. Andrews Labor government—bad, no good. Nothing good ever comes from over there’. Again, I would just remind those opposite to look at their record on planning, which was absolutely atrocious. Fishermans Bend—two words, Fishermans Bend—what an utter disaster. It took this government to get in power to try and keep unravelling all the disasters from those planning things. So, please, let us see what Matthew Guy has to say in the other place about what he might do if he was planning minister again. It would be the worst thing ever if that was to happen. Again, I am not getting in my region people complaining to me about these sorts of things and saying, ‘Oh, please don’t remove that level crossing. Please don’t upgrade that park. Please don’t upgrade my sporting fields. Please don’t put lights in’ and those sorts of things. So again it is a complete and utter conflation of what matters. Again, I strongly encourage everybody in this chamber to vote against this motion. It is economic vandalism. It would block access to critical infrastructure upgrades that Victoria needs, and all it would do would be to delay projects that are backed by this government and to see you say, ‘See? Bad, good, overrun costs’—making it up at every turn over there, complete rubbish as per usual. That is all they can serve up opposite. So again, it is completely false. All these claims that Mr Davis has made should be refuted, and this motion should be resoundingly rejected. Mr ATKINSON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:50): Just because you say it does not mean it is so, and the fact is that this government has claimed and certainly said at the outset that it was going to be transparent and accountable and it was going to consult people on projects. It was going to be very much a people’s government. Unfortunately, whilst that is what they have said, that has not turned out to this point to be what has happened. The processes of consultation have never been as truncated as they have been under this government. I am surprised at Ms Terpstra, who shares an electorate with me. I accept much of what she said in terms of community need, community facilities that are MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2429 appreciated and where services need to be delivered at a local level to support people, and so I agree with much of what she said. But I am surprised that she indicates that in her electorate, the one that I share with her, she has not heard from anybody about concerns about the facilities that are put. Ms Terpstra: I did not say that. Mr ATKINSON: You did, right at the end of your speech. And the interesting thing is that there are Mont Albert and Surrey Hills developments, but more significantly and closer to her electorate office is the situation at Montmorency. Now, I cannot believe that she has not heard of the concerns of the community at Montmorency about the lack of consultation about their railway project or the Fitzsimons Lane roundabout and road facilities. You know, one of the things in terms of this edict by the Minister for Planning is that tree controls, vegetation controls, can be waived. Well, the people at Montmorency know all about that, because indeed whilst they were trying to argue for a more consistent approach to the engineering works at Fitzsimons Lane with community amenity and with what that community is all about in terms of its support of vegetation and green and tree controls—whilst they were trying to negotiate a better outcome for that road project—on a holiday weekend, under the cover of COVID lockdown restrictions, in moved the bulldozers and removed all the trees. Where was the consultation? On Montmorency station: there was an opportunity apparently through Engage Victoria for people from the local community to seek answers to questions on projects. That opportunity has now closed, and last night in the adjournment debate I asked for the minister to bring back that Engage Victoria opportunity for people to have their questions answered, because there are still legitimate questions about how this Montmorency station development, which frankly looks like the Berlin Wall, is going to work in that community and how it is going to cut off some of the activity within that community— everybody in that community. This side of the house supports the improvement, the upgrade, of that Hurstbridge railway line. Everybody supports better public transport facilities. But they have views on how those facilities can be upgraded in keeping with the expectations of the local community, without building a Berlin Wall design and still achieving the safety and efficiency that the public transport system needs. Those people who have been consulted on that project—and there are very few—have been sworn to secrecy. They are not allowed to talk to anybody about the information that has been provided to them. They are forced to sign agreements, including the council. And the council itself, Banyule City Council, has scant information on these projects, just as the City of Glen Eira had almost no consultation in terms of some of the key changes to a project that were made at Ormond station. And this is one of the key things in terms of what the government’s approach has been. Projects are mooted and the community looks at those projects and says, ‘Well, you know, yes, we need this upgrade. Yes, we need this facility. We want it. And this seems like a reasonable proposition, and obviously we will have a chance to discuss it’. And then all of a sudden, as we find with the Mont Albert-Surrey Hills situation, 12 months after a proposal has been mooted it is completely changed without the community having been consulted at all—no consultation. In my track record of over nearly 40 years—in fact I think it is more than 40 years in public life—I think you will find it very difficult to see where I have stood in the way of projects, where I have simply said no. And I think you will also find it very difficult to point to an instance where I have not encouraged public consultation and input on projects. This is not about delaying projects. This is not about stopping projects. This is about getting better projects. This is about taking the public with you. This is about ensuring that they have an opportunity to comment, not just comment in a farcical way but in fact to have real and genuine input to public projects. And if we do that, we get better projects. It is interesting, you know, in terms of the councils. A number of councils have responded on this to the opposition. They include Mornington, Banyule, Alpine shire, certainly Maroondah council I have had discussions with, Whitehorse council, Bayside council, but not all councils. And there is a reason MOTIONS 2430 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 for that, because they were blindsided by the minister floating these proposals. They were given effectively, in local government terms, one meetings cycle to respond to these changes. So they have not actually got their head around what they mean and have not had an opportunity to even consult with the minister properly about what these proposals are, but they do know that consultation is being restricted, is being diminished under these provisions. As Mr Davis says, these provisions are supposed to last until 2025. I hope that the recovery is quicker than that in terms of our COVID situation. But irrespective of whether or not these are COVID-related initiatives, the fact is that there should be no excuse for shutting people out of the decision-making processes, particularly by a government that claims that it is transparent and accountable but so often is found wanting in those areas. I mean, even in terms of the COVID lockdown restrictions and so forth, there is still this refusal to actually release information upon which decisions and actions have been taken. There is not this transparency. And for the people of Montmorency, they certainly look at the devastation at the Fitzsimons roundabout, they certainly look at what is being pursued at Montmorency station, and they say, ‘Well, where is the transparency? Where is the effective consultation?’. I have asked on a number of occasions in this place for the minister to actually meet with them. On each occasion the minister has declined to do so. (Time expired) Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (11:00): The Greens will be supporting this revocation motion because what the government is proposing through VC194 and VC198 fundamentally undermines the entire planning system in Victoria. Both these planning scheme changes chip away at the checks and balances that protect the system from abuse or from bad decisions, removing the ability of councils and their communities to have a rightful say and undercutting the very democratic system by removing one of the only executive powers this chamber has over planning matters in this state. I appeal to everyone in this place, especially my crossbench colleagues: if you get contacted by constituents concerned about planning matters, and I am sure that you do, what the government is trying to do with VC194 and VC198 is at the heart of what is going wrong with planning in Victoria, and if it is not revoked today, it will be the subject of many more complaints from your constituents in future, so today is your chance to do something powerful to improve planning outcomes in the state. VC194 is supposedly, according to the government, about helping Victoria’s post-COVID economic recovery. The minister can now declare almost any government-funded project or project on Crown land to be a state project. If the minister declares a project to be a state project, having decided that it will support Victoria’s economic recovery from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic—according to them—the usual requirements of the planning system, including any prohibitions on the land uses and developments of things that are already prohibited by planning schemes, do not apply. We hear these projects will be things like road, railway and tramway works, water, sewerage and flood mitigation infrastructure, and police and other emergency service facilities, as well as both public and private use and development on Crown land. VC198 is similar but relates to major transport infrastructure projects, projects by Major Road Projects Victoria or Rail Projects Victoria. Under VC194 the new state projects are basically exempted from the rules of the planning system. Without the need for planning permits or amendments to the planning schemes to facilitate a particular project, any third-party rights are also extinguished. Consultation must merely be carried out to the satisfaction of the minister, according to the government documents, but this vague requirement can itself be waived. This means that there will not be a permit or an exhibition process or an opportunity for objectors to comment. These are built into the planning system for a reason: to protect the rights of the community and for the community to be involved to prevent our city and suburbs being ruined by poor planning. Councils have a big role to play in the planning system, and they do most of it for a reason: they are the experts on their communities. You cannot just shut them out. Our communities have a right to have their voices heard and to shape the projects that define their neighbourhoods. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2431

We have heard a lot from the opposition about restoring resident objection rights. As has been canvassed in this debate previously, I am not 100 per cent convinced by their motives because when they were in control of the planning process they were worse. They stripped communities of their rights to object, appeal and have their say at every turn, and of course Matthew Guy as Minister for Planning caused havoc in our planning system. Treating communities with contempt by eroding their rights is what this government is planning to do in the opposition’s footsteps. Without the need for planning permits or amendments to planning schemes, Parliament would not be able to disallow any projects approved through VC194, and I think this is a really important point that people should consider in this place today. Revocations are not things that we use lightly in this place. It is rare that we pass a disallowance motion. But we have the power for a reason: to protect against terrible decisions, to provide executive oversight of the very centralised power that the planning minister already possesses. So to take it away altogether shows a level of contempt for the important role of this chamber in our planning system. It is such an important check and balance on executive power. So few planning matters are able to be discussed or considered in this Parliament in either chamber. The disallowance lever and mechanism is one of the only levers this chamber has to discuss planning matters substantially, and the government wants to take it away. This should concern every single member of this place really seriously. We understand the need for appropriate planning controls to help economic recovery, and they are appropriate in some circumstances. But this is not an excuse to ignore all the rigours of the planning system that protect it from exploitation. We have already seen examples of bad behaviour under the cover of COVID—for example, the development facilitation program, where the will of the local community has been ignored or overruled. Last sitting week I raised some of these, including the Windsor development—a big office building in a local neighbourhood centre, a low-rise urban village, as Mr Davis alluded to in his contribution as well—and where projects of dubious state post-COVID economic recovery significance were called in through the scheme. We have also heard concerningly of developers pitching projects directly for the scheme, just another pathway for developers to skip the ‘red tape’, or so they call it—‘accountability’ in other words, ‘community feedback’ in other words— and go straight to the minister for approvals. The development community can already see that the special carve-outs that the minister is creating are loopholes through which they can exploit the system more easily for their development approvals, and the minister seems all too willing to give them the approvals without the rigour of the planning system’s checks and balances. You also have to ask if the minister himself is exploiting the crisis of COVID yet again to centralise more power in his hands. It is a pattern we have seen repeatedly by the planning minister. So while we are disappointed to see the government try and cut Parliament out of the planning system, we are not surprised. As we have seen, the government repeatedly ignores the protections built into the planning system. The minister slowly centralises more planning power within his own remit. So while we understand the need for streamlined planning post COVID and maybe that the planning system can do better for big projects, the question we have to ask ourselves is: where do we stop? When the green wedges are gone and big power plants can get approved with the flick of a pen? When we have a soulless city with no heritage that is full of developer investments? Investment in COVID recovery would be better spent on arts, retail and small businesses, which have been hit so hard by the COVID pandemic, yet the government seems to want to do more favours for its developer mates rather than actually taking a broader perspective on where economic recovery is really needed in Victoria as we recover from COVID. The government says that we need these special streamlined provisions to speed up approvals for economically significant projects. His response to this is special carve-outs for certain projects. Instead of actually getting on with the job of reforming our planning system, which is clearly broken and has been for years, the minister instead decides to centralise more and more power in his hands, carves out more and more exemptions and guts the very planning system as we know it. We have seen VicSmart, MOTIONS 2432 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 the development facilitation program and now this. What will happen next? If this is not a vote of no confidence in the planning system by the government itself, I do not know what is. What we need is a full review and rewrite of our planning laws, and that is why a number of us have supported and helped facilitate a long-overdue inquiry into our planning system, which the Environment and Planning Committee will begin soon. We should be waiting for inquiries like that to point us in the direction of how we improve our planning system, not just carving out more and more exemptions for special developer mates, for special industries that the government favours over the rights of the community to have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods. The power of the Parliament to exercise its executive power is a check and balance that has been fundamentally built into the planning system for a very good reason: that ministers should not have unfettered powers over the shape and future of our cities. There needs to be a check and balance of power, and we should protect this very, very strongly. What we are headed towards in Victoria is a planning scheme on paper but not in practice. We have things in legislation that the minister does not adhere to, more and more projects being carved out, and the community rightly say, ‘How did that get approval? I didn’t get to have a say’. It is by taking out, stripping away, community consultation. Although it says it is there on paper, we know this government has a very poor track record on taking community feedback into consideration. By stripping away the executive power of this Parliament to disallow planning scheme amendments, which are really strong artefacts of our planning system, this government is treating the community with contempt and it is treating the Parliament with contempt. This is not the way to go to improve our planning system. The minister should get on with reforming and improving the existing system that we have, not creating more carve-outs, undermining it at every turn and creating more and more exemptions that mean the planning system on paper really does not mean anything. Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (11:10): I rise to speak on the motion to revoke amendments VC194 and VC198 to the Victorian planning provisions under section 38(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the motion brought forward by Mr Davis. The Andrews Labor government is committed to Victoria’s timely social and economic recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic. Never before has there been a greater need for us to get on with the job of delivering in a timely fashion those critical projects that will not only deliver a public benefit to all Victorians in terms of the projects themselves but create jobs and improve movement and services right across this state. What this motion seeks to do is slam the brakes on those projects and stop those very important projects, those very important developments. Listening to some of the contributions that have been made here today, the one thing that seems to be lacking in these contributions and in this debate is the facts. Mr Atkinson said when he started this contribution, ‘Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so’. Further on in Mr Atkinson’s contribution he pointed to his own track record: ‘Go back. I haven’t stood in the way of projects. I don’t do that. That’s not me. Go back and have a look at my record’. Well, since I have been in here I reckon Mr Atkinson has voted at least on three occasions, maybe even more, to oppose the development of the Markham estate. So there are examples where people in this place get up and say for a matter of convenience whatever suits in terms of the argument just to prove their own point, but it is important that we get the facts right. The motion that the house is dealing with implies that the controls that are introduced by VC194 and VC198 into planning schemes diminish the notification requirements for local communities and remove appeal rights from local communities. It is just false. That is not what those amendments do, and we refute this claim. VC194 introduces two new provisions: a states projects provision at clause 52.30 and a local government projects provision at clause 52.31. Those provisions enable the state government and local councils to deliver projects that our communities need, and there are countless projects that fall under these auspices. By blocking those projects through the support of this motion what we will be doing is we will be blocking new and upgraded ambulance stations, repairs and upgrades on Parks Victoria land, train station upgrades, congestion-busting road and rail projects, new libraries, sports pavilions and maternity health centres. Ms Terpstra in her contribution talked a MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2433 lot about the sports projects particularly in her electorate and the importance of those projects to her local community. Supporting this proposal today would slam the brakes on those very, very important developments. I want to talk a little bit about some of the projects that actually will cease should we support this proposition. But before I do I want to talk about this issue of consultation. I dismiss the arguments put forward by the Greens, because if you actually go through and have a look at the Greens’ track record, whether it is in the federal arena, whether it is in the state arena or whether it is in local government, they are not really pro-development, are they? They really do not argue in favour of too much development. But instead what they do is they come in here and they sling mud and they put on the record assertions that there is some degree of corruption that is going on in this space. That was largely what Dr Ratnam’s contribution was about. She spent probably 50 per cent at least of her contribution here this morning asserting that there is something dodgy going on between the Minister for Planning and developers. It is very easy to sling mud in this place. It is very easy to throw those sorts of accusations around. And I would say to Dr Ratnam and the Greens: if you have evidence of that, there are authorities that are available for you to go and talk to and bring those matters to their attention—because it is an appalling approach to a debate about public policy, under privilege in this chamber or in the other place, to suggest things that are completely false and create an air of corruption where it does not exist. I think it is an appalling approach that the Greens have brought to this debate today. I say: if you have got that evidence, go and talk to the appropriate authorities or, better still, have the courage at lunchtime to go out the back on the doors and make those claims where you have not got the protection of privilege. And I bet you that is what you will not see on tonight’s news; we will not see that occurring. We cannot conflate consultation with agreement or otherwise. Not everybody is going to agree with every project that is being developed around this state—we get that—and people who oppose the development for whatever reason through that consultation process do air their grievance, do air their opposition to the project. But that does not mean that consultation has not occurred. Consultation has occurred, and people have had the opportunity, and those contributions are weighed up before those decisions are made. If we support this proposal here today, which ambulance stations throughout Victoria are we not going to continue to build? I had the great pleasure of officially opening the Tatura CFA recently, and it was a great privilege. Which of those projects do we stop, where we are developing those very important public assets? But if we support this motion here today, that is precisely what we will be doing. We have delivered 22 new stations since we have come to office, a number of them in my electorate of Northern Victoria—in Broadford, Echuca, Murchison, Mernda, Diamond Creek, Tatura, Watsonia and Preston—and I understand that there are another 30-odd that are under construction at various stages now. Which of those do we stop in Northern Victoria—Beechworth, Rochester, Euroa, Gisborne—and countless others right throughout the state? So we have to understand—to be very, very clear—what this proposal is all about. Mr Davis has come in here today and he has said this will not stop these projects. It is exactly what will happen. That is precisely what will happen. Let us bring the facts to the debate. Let us bring the truth to the debate. Let us not stand up in this place and rewrite history and tell the world that we have done one thing when we have actually done another, because the record reflects that. Let us not make things up. Let us not throw around unfounded accusations and cast aspersions on people under the cover of privilege in this place. Let us bring the facts to the debate, and the facts are that we are getting on with very, very important projects that will help deliver an economic and social recovery to Victoria as we come through the COVID-19 pandemic. That is what we should be focused on, that is what this government is focused on. We are proud of our record of infrastructure projects in this state and we will continue to build them. MOTIONS 2434 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:21): I will be brief. This whole debate this morning is a very clear indication that our planning system is broken. By gazetting these planning amendments the government is clearly conceding that red tape and the bureaucratic maze of our planning system throw sand in the gears of anyone trying to build anything in Victoria. There is also an admission that the planning regulations impede economic activity. In the reasons for intervention in amendment VC194 the minister states:

Amendment VC194 facilitates the timely delivery of state and local government infrastructure projects and reduce delays in planning approval processes to unlock construction sector activity and position Victoria for an early economic recovery from the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic … whatever that might mean. I suppose any application will simply put a sentence on the end ‘to facilitate economic recovery from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic’ to ensure it can bypass normal planning processes, much like many research scientists who attach ‘and the impact of climate change’ to a research proposal to ensure they receive funding. The Liberal Democrats are not by any stretch of the imagination fans of the Victorian planning system. It is a sea anchor dragging on our economy. In principle we support measures to reduce regulation. However, this is not a proposal to cut back on regulations that hamstring growth; it is just a proposal to exempt the government from its own rules. Does the government actually think that only government projects add value to the economy? If so, that is clearly insane. If unlocking construction sector activity is so vital to our economic recovery, then why add a bunch of new taxes to the property sector? If planning processes are impeding growth, why not fix them? Why not streamline the whole planning system across the state as a way of boosting economic activity and setting the conditions to reverse the capital flight happening in Victoria right now? Going through the government fact sheet on why we should oppose this revocation motion, I was struck by what was still left in. Apparently someone thought it was a selling point that projects will still need to comply with environmental considerations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; native vegetation requirements, including offsets under the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and heritage considerations under the Heritage Act 2017. Now, if you had told me you had ditched all those as well, I might have been heavily tempted to not support the revocation despite the procedural problems. Our planning system is a mess, but one of the sections of the act that the minister has exempted himself from is a requirement to give notice to the owners and occupiers of land that it believes may be materially affected by the amendment. That seems like one of the more reasonable aspects of the act, that you might actually want to let the neighbours impacted by a government construction project know about it. While the Liberal Democrats are supportive of efforts to streamline planning and reduce taxpayer burden, we believe these efforts should be broadened beyond government projects and should apply to all projects, public and private. If the planning system is too restrictive, then fix the planning system, do not just exempt yourself from the requirements of your own laws. If you come back to the house with a bill scrapping these provisions for everybody, not just the government, the Liberal Democrats will support that with bells on. Reform the planning system to unlock the economy, but we will not support exempting you from your own rules while you force everybody else to follow them. You know the system is broken, so fix it. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr Ratnam’s office for briefing my team on the Liberal Party’s motion. It seems that Dr Ratnam was more enthusiastic about this motion passing than the opposition, and that might be something for the Liberal Party to reflect on. If you cannot convince the crossbench that you actually want to succeed, I think your members would be right to question your ability to convince the Victorian people that you might actually want to win the election. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2435

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (11:24): I was only going to contribute a couple of minutes to the opposition’s motion today. Many people are aware here in Parliament that I was on Maribyrnong council for many years, and I am very familiar with planning. Some of the things that I have witnessed even just in recent times, now being a member of Parliament, include how the government still deals with planning applications that the community has not been consulted on, nor has the council. I will give one or two examples, one being that currently there is a proposal to do a development at Whitten Oval—and everybody here knows that I am a great supporter of the Western Bulldogs, so I would love to see something done there. The government has come along and said that they wish to change a roadway. It is going to cost millions of dollars. It is worthy in that it is a bit of an accident blackspot. It is a crossing underneath the street in West Footscray. It is worthy, but they have not consulted the council. They have not consulted the community. Then I can give the example of Braybrook. Braybrook for many years has wanted to have a renewal. When I was the mayor we pushed the government. There are so many social houses in that particular area. We want a renewal. But just recently the government has put out for consultation a very chunky, oversized vision for Braybrook with little consultation of exactly what the council—over the years, with the community—have planned as their vision for Braybrook. I do hope that the government actually listens to that consultation and reduces the size, being that the Braybrook community is very challenged in the way of buses and having that 200-metre zone compared to what you would normally have for a sizeable development very close to a train station. The third example I can give you is the Maribyrnong defence force site. I must say to the federal government: really? You own the defence force sites. It has been sitting there with a fence around it for 20-plus years with kangaroos and wallabies jumping around, and no-one can actually make up their mind on what to do. They spent $500 million to actually get it decontaminated. It is meant to be a dual responsibility, with the federal government having this conversation with the state government, and there have been crickets for years. All my community wants to see is increased parkland in that particular area—a nice development. We have been having these conversations about quarantine facilities and looking for sites, and the federal government have at their disposal all of these old defence force sites. Truly there are many examples where the state government could actually speak to the local community and make sure that the consultations are there as well with the local council. (Time expired) Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:28): This motion is actually a very simple motion. It revokes an overreach by the state government with VC194 and VC198. It is an overreach that is actually undemocratic and that strips power away from local communities and councils. Contrary to the view put by government members, this does not prevent development. In fact we are very pro development, but we want to see better development, good-quality development and development that actually has communities and councils closely involved in making the decisions. It is not true that ambulance stations cannot go ahead. The powers already exist where an ambulance station must go forward. Ms Taylor interjected. Mr DAVIS: Ms Taylor, I have used them, so I understand those powers. In the case of Bendigo, four ambulance stations were built using those particular powers because that was justified using the powers that Tom Roper promulgated in 1987, just to be quite clear with you. Development will go ahead without these special powers. As has been pointed out, there is a long reach on these, going to 2025. It is a long way away, and if we are not out of the COVID slump by then, we will be in deep trouble. But I say we want proper development, we want proper outcomes and we actually know that councils and communities can be trusted to work with government to achieve them. The planning minister is in a very powerful position to push things forward and to move things far. Often the slow point is MOTIONS 2436 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 actually not the council or the community; the slow point is actually the planning minister and the planning department and their failure to scope things properly ahead of time and to get the work and decisions done. Very often things sit on Richard Wynne’s desk for inordinate periods of time, and that slows development. But what we do not want is decisions that are made in the dark. Why is the government seeking power to move without consultation? Why is the government seeking power to move on these projects without even notification in some circumstances? I mean, that is wrong. It is wrong that people can have their community fundamentally changed without them and their council being consulted and being part of that decision-making process. We either live in a democracy or we do not. I say we do, and I say that these protections—the third- party appeal rights, all of those matters—are extremely important. And I do not think Daniel Andrews or his ministers should be given a blank cheque to ride over communities, to ride over the local councils, to actually make decisions that are not often in the community interest. We want better projects. We want projects that are better scoped. We do not want projects that are rushed and stuff- ups, as we have seen in so many areas: good-quality projects that have actually got the work and the democracy and the decision-making and the consultation behind them. They will be better projects. In government we did these projects. I as health minister did them at the Bendigo Hospital, at the Royal Children’s, the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre and the Box Hill Hospital. I could go on and on—$4.5 billion worth. Important points, but we worked with local communities on all of those. House divided on motion:

Ayes, 17 Atkinson, Mr Davis, Mr O’Donohue, Mr Bach, Dr Finn, Mr Ondarchie, Mr Barton, Mr Hayes, Mr Quilty, Mr Bath, Ms Limbrick, Mr Ratnam, Dr Crozier, Ms Lovell, Ms Rich-Phillips, Mr Cumming, Dr McArthur, Mrs Noes, 22 Bourman, Mr Maxwell, Ms Symes, Ms Elasmar, Mr Meddick, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Erdogan, Mr Melhem, Mr Taylor, Ms Garrett, Ms Patten, Ms Terpstra, Ms Gepp, Mr Pulford, Ms Tierney, Ms Grimley, Mr Shing, Ms Vaghela, Ms Kieu, Dr Stitt, Ms Watt, Ms Leane, Mr Motion negatived. ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS PROGRAMS Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:39): I move motion 590 standing in my name:

That this house: (1) notes that: (a) alcohol and other drugs greatly contribute to recidivism by offenders; (b) many courts, including drug courts, that use drug and alcohol testing and alcohol monitoring technology, have seen a reduction in alcohol and other drug related crimes; (c) drug and alcohol testing and monitoring can provide offenders with incentives to abstain from alcohol and the ability to provide wraparound services; (d) Victoria already offers some regular testing programs, including SCRAM continuous alcohol monitoring for parolees; (e) New Zealand’s alcohol and other drug testing (AODT) community trial, and other jurisdictional equivalents, could be considered for use in Victoria, potentially through a sentencing deferral option; MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2437

(2) calls on the government to investigate reforms to our legal system, including: (a) New Zealand’s AODT program that was rolled out nationwide in March 2021; (b) the 24/7 Sobriety program, which is a ‘swift, certain and fair’ approach to reducing recidivism in alcohol and other drug offenders, which has been operating in South Dakota since 2005; and (c) the use of SCRAM continuous alcohol monitoring technology, which is being rolled out across the United Kingdom, as a potential sentencing option by courts. In Victoria we have a problem. More than half of our offenders return to corrective services inside just two years. It is estimated that over 77 per cent of crime is associated with the use of alcohol and other drugs. As the Age put it very recently, and I quote:

… drugs and alcohol are … fertile ground for criminal offending. Ms Kilkenny in the other place also recently spoke on this issue, saying, and I quote:

We have seen extensive research that reveals the really strong links between illicit drug taking and offending … Throughout my motion today I will offer some solutions to break this relationship between alcohol and other drugs—or AOD—use and crime, and I will also ask the government to commit to researching the models I propose in order to run a best practice pilot to address this problem. In an Australian Institute of Criminology—AIC—study conducted in 2019, 78 per cent of Australian offenders tested positive to at least one type of drug. Almost one-third of offenders reported having consumed alcohol in the 48 hours before detention. The AIC has also previously found that despite their lower representation in arrests, female detainees were affected by drugs 73 per cent of the time of their offending. Studies in this area repeatedly say the same thing: drugs and alcohol are huge contributors to crime. Through this motion I will identify some possible solutions to the incredible amount of recidivist AOD offending here in Victoria; more specifically, I will focus on three specific models and the need for a pilot program to help eliminate these offenders’ relationships with AOD and set them on a positive trajectory away from courts and prisons. The first of these three models is 24/7 Sobriety. 24/7, as I will refer to it, started in South Dakota when Judge Larry Long was seeing the same repeat drink drivers continually come before him in court. From 2004 he decided instead to sentence those offenders to sobriety 24 hours a day for usually around three to six months. They had to go to their local police station at 7.00 am and 7.00 pm every day for a breath test. If they failed or did not show up, they would be held in the cells for 24 hours. If they breached again, they would go in for 48 hours, and on the third occasion a judicial review would occur. Due to its success the program is now being widely adopted in the US, the UK and beyond. Indeed that success was reflected in a comprehensive program evaluation conducted by the independent research centre Rand, headed by Dr Beau Kilmer, who my office has met. Using very reliable widespread data across different counties, the 24/7 evaluation found a huge reduction in car crashes of 18- to 40-year-old men, a 12 per cent reduction in drink driving related arrests, a 9 per cent reduction in family violence and at least an 80 per cent reduction in the probability of a DUI arrest one year after participation. Interestingly, the offenders actually end up enjoying a good rapport with law enforcement, given they see them twice a day. Offenders can keep their job, attend programs voluntarily and repair the family unit. All offenders are offered treatment, and some accept that offer, but it is not a mandatory requirement. Professor Keith Humphreys puts 24/7’s success best, and I quote:

… mandatory sobriety yielded a 4.2% drop in the South Dakota’s all-cause adult mortality. Because three- quarters of participants are male, it is particularly striking that the decrease in mortality was even higher among the state’s women, who might otherwise have suffered fatal consequences from others’ drinking. That is one of Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party’s biggest goals—to protect the vulnerable, including women. Judge Long and others called this approach a ‘swift, certain and fair’ model. It is swift because the reprimand for a breach happens quickly, it is certain because there is no discretion for that MOTIONS 2438 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 reprimand and it is fair because the response is measured rather than overly punitive. For those wondering why this program is so effective, think of it like a muffin on the counter. You say to your child, ‘Don’t eat that muffin on the counter’, and if they eat that muffin, you give them an immediate and proportionate response to teach them a lesson. It might be, for instance, no TV for the night. But when have you ever told your child, ‘If you eat that muffin, I’ll give you a punishment that I haven’t established yet sometime down the track’? It is ridiculous, but that is literally how our legal system works in practice. As a result of this program’s long-running success, the USA is now moving away from ignition interlock devices in order to treat the person, not the car. Go figure. The second model is the UK model. It is based on South Dakota’s 24/7 but is solely tech focused, using dermal alcohol monitors called SCRAM CAMs. Secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring CAMs are a continuous alcohol monitor manufactured by Alcohol Monitoring Systems since 2003. These devices are used by courts worldwide to apply an evidence-based approach to determining sanctions for the recidivist offender on a sobriety order. Basically the ankle bracelet tests a person’s sweat every 30 minutes for the presence of alcohol and then sends the information to law enforcement for action. There are different ways of seeing if someone has put something between the skin and the bracelet, if the bracelet has been removed or if someone has sprayed the device with hand sanitiser, perfume or the like—it is pretty remarkable. Offenders have referred to SCRAM CAM as a lifesaver. Every drink they do not take is a step towards long-term behaviour change. Prior to its introduction the UK government was confronting 700 000 alcohol-fuelled violent incidents annually. The SCRAM CAM bracelets were initially rolled out at three pilot sites and proved massively successful, according to UK police minister Kit Malthouse. I spoke directly to Mr Malthouse, and he says that MPs need to take a leap of faith in implementing a program like this. In one pilot 111 offenders had an average of 12 prior arrests, eight sanctions and six court convictions each. This is typical of a UK community sentence. Ninety-two per cent of these career criminals did not breach once in the pilot. Mr Malthouse says that the 120-day limit on how long someone could wear the bracelet inhibits some of the program’s success, giving an example of an offender who said to him, and I quote:

Do you know what? You’ve saved my life. By clearing the alcohol out of my life I could see clearly what was going wrong for me … I’d like to keep the tag beyond my sentence. Mr Malthouse said many people wanted to keep the tag on past their sentence, as it helped keep them accountable. Kit said that some MPs thought that taking away people’s right to drink was too punitive. Sound familiar? If you cannot drink without breaking the law, I think this warrants any rights being stripped away, at least for a little while. Although SCRAM CAM has not worked for everyone, the overall results have been incredible as one tool for magistrates to use where appropriate. For perspective, just 6 per cent of offenders on SCRAM ended up in the courts for non-compliance. Kit said no extra expense or resourcing was needed, nor does SCRAM CAM have any financial constraints on police or corrections. He says it actually saves money and time, if anything. These two models I have described are both aimed at alcohol-using offenders only, rather than for the cohort using other drugs, but both systems do allow for drug testing with the same swift, certain and fair approach. Herald Sun readers over the weekend were frustrated that the bracelets only test for alcohol and not drugs, but international models have the capacity for drug testing as well where it contributed to their offending. Poly-drug users is a big category of offenders also. The last model is New Zealand’s alcohol and other drug testing community program, or AODT, which as of March this year has been rolled out countrywide. New Zealand, like us, identified that they were sentencing offenders to short periods of imprisonment with a recidivism rate that would not budge and extremely high AOD offending. In 2017 they passed legislation allowing corrections to drug and alcohol test offenders on community supervision orders. We have similar provisions, but I am informed that these powers are unfortunately rarely used by Corrections Victoria. AODT allocates a recidivist AOD offender a tier based on their risk to use AOD or reoffend. Tier 1 is low risk, involving MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2439 urine analysis testing based on reasonable grounds only; tier 2 is a randomised but frequent testing regime, as well on reasonable grounds; and tier 3 is more regular than tier 2, combined with reasonable grounds testing. Along with satellite sites, the program had a bus that would drive around, increasing accessibility for offenders to access testing. For breaches, the repercussions were decided by probation officers and sometimes involved mandatory rehabilitation, counselling with family members, appointments with housing support or relationship counselling, among other strategies. Offenders would go to prison if they were assessed as being a risk to the community. Now, New Zealand’s program in my eyes is not necessarily the gold standard. There is no specific framework on how to deal with positive tests or those that do not turn up, which unfortunately means offenders do not have an action-consequence model to consider— think back to the muffin on the countertop idea. According to the UK police minister, I quote:

Critical to the success— of a program for AOD offenders—

is that there is 100 per cent certainty of consequence … because the moment you don’t enforce on a breach then they think they can get away with it. A quantitative analysis of AODT has also pointed to the high cost of SCRAM bracelets. However, no detailed cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken. This result is also a legacy of each SCRAM CAM unit in New Zealand apparently costing $9000, instead of South Dakota’s US$1500, because of their own commercial arrangements. However, when you think about the impacts of not sentencing someone to an arbitrary jail period after success in the program—reduced crime and therefore less victims of crime needing financial assistance—the capacity for major savings seems obvious. I also remind members that in Australia the Productivity Commission estimates that prison costs around $120 000 a year, or $325 a day. In contrast, COAG estimates community corrections offenders cost about $47 a day to manage. If we address someone’s AOD issues and they do not reoffend, we are saving an enormous amount. You will not find me saying that prison should not be an option for offenders. In fact a high proportion of them are not safe enough to be in the community. There are some who should never be released, but we do need to strike a balance. So what exactly am I proposing? After a very long period of research by my office we are hoping that the government might explore a deferred sentencing program, based on these three international examples, to develop a best practice pilot. Despite an offender pleading guilty to an offence, they have no access to a specific monitoring and testing program before sentencing. You can attend counselling or behaviour change programs, but none of these include regular testing and connection with services as a result. A deferred sentencing option would allow offenders to elect to attend an intensive monitoring program addressing their behaviour before sentencing. This may also be a recommendation from the court or even from their own defence lawyer to help mitigate their eventual sentencing. Deferred sentencing currently exists in Victoria but is not structured to be as intensely monitored as what I am proposing. We hope that for an offender who successfully completes a program this can be taken into consideration at sentencing and therefore incentivise them to do well in the program. We envisage magistrate discretion is needed for the program referrals, and from speaking to magistrates firsthand they absolutely agree that they are best placed to make this decision. Based on evidence from other jurisdictions we believe it will be most successful if the focus of the pilot were recidivist offenders with AOD problems at the core of their offending. In other jurisdictions offenders need to participate voluntarily also. Data also consistently shows that the longer someone’s participation the better, in order to ingrain those habits and create long-term abstinence. For example, Montana’s 24/7 program had an average sentence of 123 days, whereas in New Zealand’s less intensive program offenders could be tested for two years. MOTIONS 2440 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

We would also like to see further adoption of SCRAM CAMs in other areas of the justice system. As Magistrate Tony Parsons said in 2017, magistrates should have an option to sentence using SCRAMs. Given we allow AOD testing through community correction orders and magistrates can now impose electronic monitoring on offenders, this seems sensible. New Zealand also extended their testing program to those on bail as long as they wore a SCRAM CAM. Importantly Victoria actually currently uses SCRAM for parole and post-sentence conditions. We have monitored over 1000 people with SCRAM CAMs. Currently Victoria’s parolees have about a 96.5 per cent sober day rate, which means offenders are sober for 96.5 per cent of the time. If the offender has a drinking episode, they have their parole revoked or another action is taken. It is a real pity that we have not embraced it further in Victoria, but given this information, it seems the platform does exist. This approach would fix the program by creating an honesty system for offenders and their AOD use. Frequent monitoring keeping offenders accountable to themselves and their goals as well as their case manager would enable conversations about wraparound services, as their AOD use would be evidence-based, reducing the recidivism rate, meaning less risk to the community as a result of the program, and as a deferred sentencing option it would encourage offenders to stay sober. Some elements we would like to discuss with the government further include a consistent framework for actions taken in response to breaches. We know from the evidence of the AOD trial and other swift, certain and fair models around the world that when people know what the punishment outcome is they are less likely to breach. We would also like to know exactly how services such as AOD rehab and counselling would slot into such models. How would you incorporate supports similar to Victoria’s Drug Court model, including housing specialists, relationship programs, AOD rehab, anger management and employment specialists? We would also like to discuss with the government the threshold at which someone is at risk to themselves, their loved ones or the community and needs to go to prison, which is very important. In terms of current approaches we are not quite hitting the mark. The recent announcement about a zero blood alcohol content requirement for repeat drink drivers sounds great, but the reality is you only catch the driver when they are breaking the law. It is not preventative; it is reactive. Through the short- term accommodation program at the old Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre strict measures including drug testing and bag searches were implemented very easily, and the same should occur with this program. As part of the request for a best practice pilot it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge how desperately Victoria requires more investment in AOD beds and counselling. It is obvious that given the requirement for support services as part of the program model you would be setting the program up to fail if you did not invest heavily in AOD beds and counselling. When you think about what recidivist AOD crime costs our state this is a drop in the ocean. I would just like to take a moment in summing up to thank a lot of people who have interacted with my office on these issues. Particular thanks go to Judge Larry Long, the father of Sobriety; Bill Mickelson, ex-highway patrol in South Dakota; Dr Beau Kilmer from the Rand research centre, who ran the independent evaluation of 24/7; Dr Keith Humphreys, former adviser to the US and current adviser to the UK government on the SCRAM rollout; Dan Altvater from SCRAM; the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education; the Alcohol and Drug Foundation of Victoria; the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association; the Uniting Church in Australia; representatives from No to Violence; the La Trobe Centre for Alcohol Policy Research; the UK policing minister, Kit Malthouse; New Zealand Department of Corrections; also Professor Joe Graffam and so many others. Also thank you to the Attorney-General and the Attorney’s office, in particular Sharon, in liaising with us about our proposal and taking this issue seriously. We think it will literally save lives. Lastly, Professor Peter Miller, thank you for bringing this swift, certain and fair approach to our attention some years ago and for answering many of our questions. Your genuine desire to reduce the negative effects of alcohol are admirable, and we look forward to working with you on other similar matters again. So in summary, our hope is that the government will research these programs in a bid to address the very real problem we have in Victoria of high recidivism among AOD offenders. Other jurisdictions QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2441 are addressing this problem through innovative and evidenced-based ways. To those in this place who purport to take an evidenced-based approach to reform, there is just no way you could oppose my motion on that basis. This motion has encapsulated over 18 months of research and stakeholder feedback from each side of the fence, and taking both perspectives into account we are very pleased to finally ask the government to take the next step and work towards a pilot program in Victoria. This comes down to one idea: less perpetrator alcohol and other drug use and reoffending means less victims of crime. That is my aim here in Parliament, and I commend this motion to the house. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (11:57): I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion put up by Mr Grimley and in fact to support that, in the sense that we, as the government, always welcome the opportunity to have discussion about the merits of monitoring and compliance approaches from other jurisdictions in order to maximise offender engagement with alcohol and other drugs treatment and support in order to enhance the safety of our community. I have 2 minutes before question time, so just let me give some introduction, and then I will continue after question time. At the outset I would like to reaffirm and remind the house that the Andrews Labor government are committed to improving community safety, and we are considering all approaches to strengthening our justice system responses. We also recognise that use of alcohol and other drugs— AOD—is a critical factor that contributes to much of the offending within our community. It is essential that we do have effective evidence-based programs in place to support people in overcoming their substance issues. We do have a strong record in using innovative criminal justice approaches to target the underlying causes of AOD offending with treatment supported by monitoring and compliance. In fact electronic monitoring and the so-called SCRAM CAM—which is secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring technology—is already an essential part of the government’s response to the management of high-risk and recidivist offenders in the community. We are also delivering and expanding programs that assist members of our community to address their substance dependence, including programs specific to the criminal justice system. In fact in the 2021– 22 budget the government has injected $5.1 million into community AOD support and $1.3 million into the forensic AOD system. I would like to talk about the Drug Court. I had the opportunity to go to the Drug Court in Dandenong three weeks ago with the Attorney-General and also Minister Gabrielle Williams, and it was a very positive experience that I had with a person there. He was very much looking forward to being ‘graduated’—in quotation marks—to being free from dependence and looking forward to his coming child. It has been a very good experience for him. Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders. Questions without notice and ministers statements SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:00): My question is to the Leader of the Government. Minister, I refer to the Andrews Labor government’s delay in seeking the assistance of the ADF in the wake of the recent devastating storm. Emergency management commissioner Andrew Crisp said that defence personnel were not required on the ground because:

They didn’t have many people who are trained … and they didn’t have arborists. Minister Pearson doubled down in question time in the other place yesterday, saying:

I mean, you know, the ADF do some fantastic work, but they are not skilled arborists. Minister, is it the Andrews Labor government’s position that the Australian Defence Force do not have the capacity to cut down gum trees? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2442 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:01): Mr Davis has addressed his question to me in relation to the devastation that has resulted from extreme weather events out in the east, and of course our attention and focus on recovery for those communities remains a focus of the government. In relation to requests for ADF support, any request for assistance requires an initial impact assessment to determine what resources would be required and to indeed identify the support that would be sought, and this includes the number of people required and the type of work to be performed. This work, I understand, was completed, and once the scale and complexity of the storm damage was assessed, the request for ADF could be made. The inspector-general for emergency management has been monitoring Victoria’s response to the storms, and I understand has written to the acting minister endorsing the approach to the ADF requests as appropriate. A major part of course of the clean-up efforts requires removing dangerous trees to re-establish access in particular areas, which is required to be carried out by trained arborists, particularly for safety measures. On the ADF, we are very grateful for their support. They are on the ground helping to provide relief for Victorian agencies; assisting with general road clearance; helping to deliver generators, as we talked about yesterday, for those in need; and indeed providing support to relief centres and those all-important welfare checks, knocking on doors and ensuring we can get support to those people that still require it. As I indicated yesterday and continue to do today, this is an important focus of the government, and we thank all of those involved for their efforts. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:03): I thank the minister for her answer. I notice she talked about the initial impact assessments. Minister, was there an initial impact assessment that enabled the cabinet to form the view that ADF soldiers cannot cut down trees or remove debris, or was there some other reason for the delay? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:03): Mr Davis, the ADF planners and personnel were requested as a result of the initial assessments to identify any gaps and any skills that anybody could bring to the effort. I would note that the Red Cross are there as well. But I think you are overly simplifying the task at hand. A lot— Members interjecting. Ms SYMES: Felling and dealing with trees, as I said, has to be done in a very safe way. The devastation caused by the storms we do not want compounded by people incurring significant injury in the process of helping the community. As I said, the appropriate people have been directed to the appropriate tasks to indeed help with the recovery efforts. Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:04): I move:

That the minister’s unusual answer be taken into account on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. GAME MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:05): My question is for the Minister for Agriculture in the other place. The complete and utter incompetence of this government’s Game Management Authority was on display again during this year’s duck-shooting season. On the last weekend of the season two rescuers observed shooters killing over their bag limit and then discarding the carcasses. They reported this illegal behaviour to the GMA and collected the birds to give to them as evidence. When the officers of the GMA arrived, the shooters were not charged—troubling enough, you might say. Instead they interrogated the rescuers, who were not breaking any laws by being there, yet both rescuers received hefty fines for being in possession of the illegally shot birds. Criminals freed; informants prosecuted—corrupt, incompetent, disgraceful. Minister, will you personally pull the GMA into line and ensure these fines are revoked? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2443

Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:06): I thank Mr Meddick for bringing this matter to the attention of the Council. This is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture, and I will refer to the matter to her. She will provide you with a written response in accordance with the standing orders. Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:06): Thank you, Minister, for forwarding that on. On a supplementary, Minister, the inappropriate and inadequate behaviour of the GMA is long documented. There was even an independent inquiry into them that pointed out their entrenched biased behaviour. Yet it continues. Can you please advise what is going to be done to restore the public’s faith that this agency of your government will uphold the rule of law? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:06): Again I thank Mr Meddick for his question, and the matter will be referred to the Minister for Agriculture, Mary-Anne Thomas. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: AGRICULTURE TRAINING Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:07): Last Thursday the Minister for Agriculture and I met with the member for Buninyong, Michaela Settle, at Western Plains Pork near Rokeford to announce a review into the future of agriculture training in Victoria. Since coming to government we have made important headway in delivering more agriculture training to Victorians. We put a number of agricultural courses on the free TAFE list. We have invested in accommodation and training facilities at agricultural colleges including Dookie, Longerenong and Marcus Oldham. We have made investments in shearing training to increase the number of shearers in Victoria, and now we are taking stock through a review that will look at how TAFEs can continue to attract and prepare students for a career in agriculture. The review will be led by Michaela Settle, who went to TAFE and owned and operated a family sheep farm near Ararat for more than a decade. I could not think of anyone better to lead this review. It was a fantastic launch of the review at Western Plains, and I got to meet a lot of people, including staff and nearby farmers. I find that no matter where I go I always come across a TAFE graduate, and it was exciting to meet Annie-May Fagg, who completed her apprenticeship in agriculture and also studied wool classing at Federation TAFE. Annie-May spoke about how TAFE gave her so many new skills for her work, and she shared with us the importance of this review as it will really take on board the experiences of people working in agriculture and listen to what they need for the future. I look forward to receiving the report and its recommendations later this year. COVID-19 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:08): My question is for the minister representing the health minister. Minister, will you guarantee the information collected through the state’s now mandatory QR code app will never be used for any purpose other than contact tracing? The government’s QR regime requires everyone to report their whereabouts to the government wherever they go. People worry their data will be leaked or be used against them by the government. They are right to worry; the state has a history of using mandatorily reported information to spy on and prosecute the public. The contact-tracing system should not be used as a state surveillance tool. The police association has joined calls to protect Victorians from the use of this data for purposes other than contact tracing. The association secretary said:

Given QR codes were introduced in the best interest of community health, are temporary, and rely wholly on community compliance, we believe that the data collected should be free of any intrusion whatsoever, outside of its original purpose of contact tracing. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:09): I thank Mr Quilty for his question, which is directed to the Minister for Health. It probably should not be directed to the Minister for Health, because he is not the minister responsible for QR codes, but given I have got some information in relation to that issue, I will just answer it as QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2444 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Leader of the Government, which I think might be the best way through that, because you will not get anything further back from the Minister for Health. Of course QR data is obviously something that is very important at the moment as we respond to the health challenges in our state. It is only used in the event of outbreaks to help contact tracers to quickly identify exposure sites, which is important to running this virus into the ground. The data is encrypted, safe and only kept for a period of 28 days by Service Victoria, and there have been no instances to date where QR code data has been disclosed to law enforcement. Mr Quilty, in relation to requests for disclosure, it has to be via a court order and at the discretion of a magistrate and occur through the Department of Health, which would be required to interpret that data. Under the Service Victoria Act 2018 and the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 Service Victoria could be required to hand over data under a court order. The terms of use explicitly state that personal information could be disclosed for law enforcement or to investigate unlawful activity—very, very confined reasons that have not been used to date. Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (12:11): Thank you, Minister. Minister, when will mandatory check-ins be scrapped? Western Australia police have accessed the data as part of two investigations. The Victorian acting police minister has confirmed that Victoria Police can also access QR check-in data, as you have just said now. Victoria Police have requested access to this data on three occasions. To the government’s credit, these requests have been denied. We should not live in a surveillance state where citizens are forced to report their location to authorities and then have that information used against them. Citizens are providing a good-faith service to the state when they check in, and their trust should not be abused. As long as this mandatory check-in system exists it is a threat to our privacy and a constant temptation for police. By the start of December everyone who wants a vaccine should have had one. We need to return to the old normal, with no government check-ins. We need to end the state of emergency, open the borders and scrap the QR codes. This cannot be a part of the government’s new, permanent COVID regime. Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:12): As usual, Mr Quilty, there were lots of statements in your question, so I will leave some of that as a statement. In relation to your question about the ongoing need for QR check-in at many venues across the state, we make no apologies for making this a requirement in Victoria for the benefit of public safety. Of course this is a measure that has proved very valuable in being able to notify people that they have been at exposure sites and to take appropriate action as required. No data has been provided at the request of Victoria Police to date. As I have outlined, this is a very confined area. I would also point to the information commissioner’s comments in relation to the support of the Service Victoria app—requiring people to use one app is considered the best course of action for privacy concerns, as opposed to multiple platforms—which have also informed the government’s decision to go down that route. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:13): My question is to the Leader of the Government. In past flood events Traralgon residents had a comprehensive flood warning system in place through the Latrobe City Council. The system won a statewide award. The communication of flood warnings was removed from council and transferred to EMV, with warnings to be communicated via the VicEmergency app. On 10 June, Minister, the first time residents actually received an ‘Evacuate now’ warning was 4 hours late, after water ran down the streets and after water was knee-deep in residents’ kitchens. Why did Emergency Management Victoria fail to warn Traralgon residents, business owners and community clubs that there was a major flood coming? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:14): I thank Ms Bath for her question and indeed her commitment to her community that is suffering as a result of the extreme weather events in recent weeks. As I have indicated, the continued efforts of all members of Parliament, particularly those that are in that region, are much QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2445 appreciated. In relation to the specifics of her question, I acknowledge that she has put it to the Leader of the Government, but this would be more appropriately directed to the emergency services minister, who would be in a better position to provide greater detail to the question that she has raised. So I would ask that the question be referred to the relevant minister, and the representative minister in this house is Ms Tierney. Ms Bath: On a point of order, President, the minister responded with precedence today with respect to comments around the response to the crisis—to the floods and storms. She does sit on that management committee, and she does have a right to actually respond to that question. Ms SYMES: In response to the point of order, President, I have made it my intention to attempt to answer fully the questions that are put to me by members of this place, but just because I am a member of cabinet or any committee does not mean that I take on the responsibilities of relevant ministers. Indeed I will always attempt to provide high-level information as requested, particularly as I demonstrated in response to Mr Davis’s question, but this is a very specific question about a responsibility that does not fall within my portfolio responsibilities. The PRESIDENT: Ms Bath, when you asked your question I had suspicions that your question should be going straight to Minister Tierney because she represents the acting minister for emergency services, and Ms Symes made it clear that that is the responsibility of emergency services. I understand you said she is in the cabinet and things like that, but unfortunately it is up to you whether you direct your supplementary to Minister Tierney or we move on. Your supplementary has to go to Minister Tierney. Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (12:17): Thank you, President. We will see how this one runs. Minister, this relates to flood data. With a lack of sufficient warning, residents looked out their windows to see a miniskip floating down the main street outside their homes. They also had to contend with furniture floating in their lounge rooms. My question is: why did EMV ignore flood data that was available many hours before the flood impacted locals and businesses? Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Order! While I regard Ms Symes as having answered your substantive question, I redirect the supplementary to Ms Tierney as representing the emergency services minister, so I ask Ms Tierney to respond to the supplementary. Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:18): I thank Ms Bath for the question. This is a matter for the minister for emergency services. It will be referred to the minister for emergency services for a written response as per the standing orders. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: COVID-19 VACCINATION Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (12:18): It is my great pleasure to provide the house with an exciting update in COVID vaccine development in Victoria. It was my pleasure on Sunday to join the Acting Premier, James Merlino, to announce that Victorian scientists have developed and will make Australia’s first local mRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate to reach phase 1 clinical trials—a breakthrough in medicine and manufacturing that stands to save lives. This means we are on track to meet our aim of having an mRNA vaccine manufacturing capability developed here in Victoria within 12 months. Having this capability will ensure that in the long term we are not reliant on supplies of critical vaccines or indeed other medications being solely made overseas and imported; we will have our own sovereign capability. We are investing $5 million to support the Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences to manufacture doses of their mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for trials that are due to start within months. This novel mRNA-based vaccine will enable local Victorian manufacturers to develop critical QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2446 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 capability ahead of clinical trials, a level of expertise not currently available in Australia. This is a collaboration between MIPS and the Doherty Institute, led by Professor Colin Pouton and Professor Damian Purcell. It reinforces the strong mRNA sector in Victoria and means we are leading the national charge to develop this. 150 people will be involved in the phase 1 clinical trials that are due to begin by October, with preliminary results expected to be available in the first half of 2022. This is the first investment made from the government’s landmark $50 million investment in the state budget to develop this capability. Our government is building mRNA capability to equip Victoria and Australia with next-generation research and vaccine support for COVID protection, for future pandemics and indeed for research capabilities for new drug and medical research breakthroughs. mRNA capability is revolutionising medical research globally and has the capacity for broad-based application in HIV, cancer and many other therapeutics. MEDICINAL CANNABIS Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:20): My question today is for Minister Stitt in her capacity as workplace safety minister. Professor Johanna Maclean of Temple University in the US has just completed a landmark research paper studying the impacts of medicinal cannabis legislation on workers compensation claims. She found that there was a 14 per cent reduction in income derived from workers compensation claims in older adults, aged 40 to 62, in states that had legalised medicinal cannabis. This was in part due to a major reduction in people moving away from therapeutic substitutes like opioids. Will the minister move to ensure that employees who have been legally prescribed medicinal cannabis are free from the worry of facing the sack if found with a small amount of THC from their medication in their system? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:21): I thank Ms Patten for her question. Of course supporting injured workers to return to work is a priority. I am not advised on the specifics of cannabis use in this workers compensation space, but I am happy to see what further information I might be able to provide to the member on that point. What I can say generally is that when considering modern treatments and medicines WorkSafe agents are guided by the WorkSafe non-established new or emerging treatments and services policy. So an agent can consider paying the reasonable costs of non-established new or emerging treatments and services, and that can include medications, equipment or particular surgeries, for example, in exceptional circumstances when it is required as a result of a work-related injury or illness. For that request to be considered by the agent, the requesting practitioner must provide strong clinical evidence of the safety and efficacy of the treatment or service. But, as I said, I am happy to see what other information I might be able to provide in addition on the specifics of your question around disciplinary action for any worker. I am happy to take that part of the question on notice. Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (12:23): Thanks, Minister. I think we are seeing a growing number of Victorians using medicinal cannabis, and their concerns at the moment are around workplace drug testing. So by way of a question: would you consider providing advice and developing guidelines for workplaces that do drug testing on how they resolve the issue with medicinal cannabis patients? Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:23): It is an interesting question. I think that many employers would already have policies in place in their workplaces around mandatory or random drug testing, so I think that it probably strays a little bit outside of the workplace safety portfolio in that regard. But, again, I am happy to see what information WorkSafe might be able to provide to help the member with this matter. PAYROLL TAX Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:24): My question is to the Minister for Higher Education. The 2020 annual report of Monash University shows that the university incurred a payroll tax liability of over an eye-watering $57 million last year alone. $33 million of this is deferred but must be paid by QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2447

2023. With over 17 000 staff, will the minister confirm that Labor’s new payroll tax hike will cost the university more than a further $12 million every year, and can the minister explain how the Andrews Labor government’s new payroll tax increase will help students get a better education? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:25): I thank the member for his question and his ongoing line of questioning in this area. What this question is about is providing a smokescreen for his buddies in Canberra who are responsible for funding the university sector, and they are refusing to accept that responsibility. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, the minister is heading off on a frolic. It is a very specific question about a university and a new state government tax being put on that university, asking the state minister responsible for universities how that tax will help. It is a very narrow question, and the minister is not entitled to frolic off into far territory. The PRESIDENT: Minister, please come back to the question. She has only been 14 seconds on her feet. Ms TIERNEY: Thank you, President. As I have spoken about at large, the fact of the matter is that the financial circumstances that universities are in are primarily because the federal government is refusing to properly fund the higher education sector, and every single university in this country, including those in Victoria, acknowledges that, so— Dr Bach: On a point of order, President, the minister is clearly flouting your ruling. The question, as Mr Davis has said, is a very narrowcast question. As you said when we made the initial point of order, the minister had only been going for a short time. I think now is an appropriate time to ensure that she abides by your ruling and comes back to the question that was asked. The PRESIDENT: I cannot direct a minister as to how to answer a question. The minister has still got over 2 minutes. Ms TIERNEY: The federal government has primary responsibility for the funding of universities, and I will say that again and again and again because those opposite continue to fail to understand that. The underlying issue of the financial circumstances of the university can be directed at the federal government. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, whilst you cannot direct a minister how to answer a question, a minister is not entitled to answer a different question. This is a question about a state government tax applied to a university and the impact of that state government tax. It is not a general ramble. The PRESIDENT: I will decide at the end. Ms TIERNEY: In terms of the mental health levy, the mental health levy was part of a recommendation of the royal commission into mental health, and as a result of that, this government has accepted those recommendations. I also support those recommendations, and I support the levy because I believe it is important that every single one of us does what we can to absolutely eradicate the scourge of mental ill health in our community. I said that in the media yesterday, and I will say it again here: we have all got responsibilities in this area. Now, in terms of the way that it was constructed, I answered that on a previous occasion in this house. But I do support the levy. The fact of the matter is that the National Tertiary Education Union, the union that covers the academic staff and the support staff, also has publicly come out in support of the levy and in respect to it applying to the university sector. The fact of the matter is that the levy will also provide further opportunities within the higher education sector for allied health courses, for greater professionalisation in the health sector, for PhDs and research— QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2448 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I just listened very carefully to the minister’s response, and she may have perhaps unwittingly misled the house. I do not think the royal commission said that a mental health levy should be put on universities. I do not think that is what the inquiry said. The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. Ms TIERNEY: Unbelievable. This is a matter that was debated in this house in the last sitting week, so in lots of ways, President, I put to you that they are flouting the decision of this chamber by continuing to question this levy. The fact of the matter is they just do not want to face up to the fact that it is their mates in Canberra that continue— (Time expired) Dr BACH (Eastern Metropolitan) (12:30): I will note that the minister went nowhere near answering my two simple questions. I can confirm for the house—I make many of her announcements for her—that the University of Monash will pay a further $12 million of additional payroll tax. By way of supplementary, I would note that Victoria’s world-leading universities are already on their knees not because of any action by the federal government but because of the COVID bungles of the Andrews Labor government, and given the magnitude of the government’s payroll tax hike, which will cost our universities tens of millions of dollars every year, what does the minister recommend that universities cut: courses, research or jobs? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:31): I recommend that the federal government actually properly fund the university sector in this country. That is what I recommend. And the fact of the matter is that this government does understand the importance of the university sector. That is why we established a $350 million higher education investment fund, and we have been rolling out announcements after, after and after in terms of the number of research projects where we are aligning government priority areas with the capabilities of the university sector. And I can tell you that the universities absolutely applaud that fund, Dr Bach. And not only that, but we have an opportunity for all universities in Victoria to also put proposals in to the $2 billion fund that I believe Minister Pulford has responsibility for. So in many ways this government provides opportunities, serious opportunities, for the university sector that the federal government does not. Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:32): I move:

That the house consider the minister’s response on the next day of meeting. Motion agreed to. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: WORKPLACE INCIDENTS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE Ms STITT (Western Metropolitan—Minister for Workplace Safety, Minister for Early Childhood) (12:33): I rise to update the house on the Andrews Labor government’s support for workers and families who have been affected by serious workplace incidents and the progress of the Workplace Incidents Consultative Committee. The committee was established as part of our tough workplace manslaughter laws, which came into effect nearly one year ago, on 1 July 2020. I am pleased to inform the house that 15 people from across Victoria have been appointed to the committee, a forum for them to contribute their lived experiences and to drive improvements in health and safety at Victorian workplaces. Members of the committee include injured workers, people who have lost a loved one at work, and carers and colleagues who have witnessed a serious workplace place injury or death. I want to acknowledge their courage and thank them for putting themselves forward to be part of this committee’s important purpose—that is, to help shape reforms for safer, healthier workplaces and support for injured workers. The Parliamentary Secretary for Workplace Safety, Bronwyn Halfpenny, chairs the committee, and it held its first meeting online last week. I know members are looking forward to meeting in person next month to get on with their important work. The committee is also being supported with $4 million to QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2449 put its recommendations into practice and create new programs and services to improve workplace health and safety in Victoria and to support those who have suffered this kind of loss. I look forward to their important work and advice on how to make our workplaces safer, because there is nothing more important than every worker coming home safe after every workday. RECREATIONAL BOATING REGISTRATION AND LICENSING Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:34): My question is for the minister representing the Treasurer in this place. This question actually covers a lot of different government portfolios, but given it eventually deals with budgets I am going to ask it of the Treasurer. I am reliably informed that Transport Victoria, or VicRoads, are given approximately $6 million to facilitate the registration and licensing of recreational boating. I have also been informed that VicRoads only use about half of these funds for implementation and management of recreational registration and licences. Treasurer, why is this the case? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:35): I think Mr Bourman for his question. As you identify, I am not entirely sure which minister would be best placed to answer that, whether it would be Minister Horne or indeed Minister Carroll, but let us try the Treasurer. I see why you have done that, so I will get you a response from the Treasurer. Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (12:35): I thank the minister for her answer. Treasurer, or whoever, with approximately half of these funds not being used for their intended purpose, where are the rest of these funds going? Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Resources) (12:35): I am more than happy to add that to the first question for the Treasurer to seek a response for Mr Bourman. GLENORMISTON COLLEGE Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:36): My question is for the Minister for Training and Skills and Minister for Higher Education. At Monday’s Public Accounts and Estimates Committee budget estimates hearing your department’s officials confirmed that on 19 February this year the site of the Glenormiston agricultural college was sold to China-based Dean Montgomery for $4.685 million by South West TAFE. The Black family passed on this historic homestead and land to the state on the condition it continued to be used in the interests of Australian agriculture and our farmers. The restriction remained in the 2016 lease to Mr Montgomery. Minister, can you confirm that the property has been sold subject to this permanent educational requirement? Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:37): Again I just find it fascinating to get questions like this when all those opposite did, when they were in government, was that they shut the Glenormiston campus down for a start and have not wanted skills and training delivered at that site since that time. When we came to government we opened the doors of Glenormiston and we restored skills and training at that campus. Mrs McArthur interjected. Ms TIERNEY: That is not true, Mrs McArthur. That is an absolute fib. Now, you should know exactly what is going on and has been going on in Glenormiston. But, no, you are not interested, because you just continue to want to have an obsession against Glenormiston. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, this was a very factual introduction to this question, and it was a very simple question about whether the sale of land was made subject to that education requirement. It was not again an opportunity for the minister to go on a free-for-all, a frolic over broad territory. It was actually highly specific. I know you cannot direct her how to answer a question, but you can direct that she respond to the question and not to different matters. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS 2450 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Davis. While I agree the minister should not be attacking the member, the minister has still got 2 minutes to address the issue. Ms TIERNEY: Thank you, President. There were interjections that prompted that. But leaving that to one side, this government has had a serious commitment to restoring skills and training at Glenormiston, and that has been done through South West TAFE. It has been pleasing to see the return of students to that campus. Since that time when the state Liberal government wanted to sell Glenormiston and could not get a buyer, we have retained the commitment that we wanted skills and training to continue to be delivered at Glenormiston. In relation to the sale, the site was independently valued by the valuer-general, and the site value at the time was determined at $4.68 million. And that was the sale price. I think that the department articulated that at the Monday hearing, Mrs McArthur. The site is zoned for educational purposes because education continues to be delivered on the site, because we have made sure that education continues to be delivered on the site— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms TIERNEY: Excuse me. What was that interjection? Members interjecting. Ms TIERNEY: Oh, my goodness me. Goodness me. If those opposite understood the basics, they might understand that education zoning means that the site must continue to be used for education purposes; hence it was sold with that zoning. Why don’t you actually commit to supporting skills and training in the south-west? Why don’t you want to see skills and training continue to be delivered at Glenormiston? Members interjecting. Ms TIERNEY: I am. I am absolutely appalled by the position that the Liberal Party adopted when they were in government and has had ever since. You can tell lots of stories— (Time expired) Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Order! That sort of interaction is not acceptable in this house. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:41): Minister, given the Glenormiston homestead includes 300 hectares, a dairy farm, a number of leased industrial buildings and perhaps most significantly 35 historic wooden panels carved by Robert Prenzel, whose value, estimated in the millions, may be worth more than the rest of the site put together, and given that nearby Chocolyn homestead, without this priceless art and on just 120 hectares, sold last month for $47 000 per hectare—extrapolating that to this sale you would conservatively estimate that the value, excluding the artwork, would be in the vicinity of $15 million—will you immediately release the valuer- general’s valuation report and explain the discrepancy between the valuer-general’s valuation of $5.18 million— (Time expired) Ms Pulford: They want to sell it again. They want to sell it a second time. Ms TIERNEY (Western Victoria—Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education) (12:42): Yes, they want to sell it again, but what they want to do is they want to sell it without any skills and training being delivered on that site. That is the key difference between a Labor government and the Liberal Party. Members interjecting. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, again the minister is attacking the opposition and answering different questions that she would rather answer, rather than actually answering the question that was asked. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2451

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please. Ms TIERNEY: The agreement continues to ensure that the delivery of training by South West TAFE will continue and the site will remain zoned for educational purposes. I have got some quotes here. Firstly, in terms of the actual company, it was a sale to Glenormiston Land Pty Ltd—Mrs McArthur, Australian owned. Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Are you finished, Minister? Ms TIERNEY: No, I can keep going. Can I say that Glenormiston Land Pty Ltd is an Australian company committed to education provision at Glenormiston, and Mr Montgomery says:

We have forged a strong partnership with SW TAFE as our dedicated education provider and look forward to a bright future of training and skills delivery at Glenormiston. Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: Please, Mr Davis. We put points of order, we interject on the minister, then we put a point of order to the minister, then we keep interjecting, then we put another point of order— Members interjecting. The PRESIDENT: I am talking. Thank you! This is not on. The minister has finished her answer. We will move on to a ministers statement. Mr Davis: On a point of order, President, I just want to be very clear that she did not answer the question about the release of the valuer-general’s report. MINISTERS STATEMENTS: SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (12:44): Today I would like to update the house on the fantastic efforts of the local councils that have supported their communities in the wake of the recent storms— the councillors, the staff and the council workers. And you need to take into account that most people that work for these local councils are actually in the areas that have been adversely affected as well, so they are dealing with their own issues with their own homes but have also been redeployed from their normal positions to emergency management centres and a number of relief centres. They are also delivering hot meals. They are doing an amazing amount of work. Can I thank the Yarra Ranges mayor, Cr Fiona McAllister, and also councillors Johanna Skelton and Cathrine Burnett-Wake for having a conversation with me, particularly at the emergency management centre in Lilydale and the Kalorama relief centre. That one relief centre has supported more than 700 residents in the last weeks. The council has staffed that particular relief centre and the other relief centres for 12 hours a day and, as I said, offering people food, essentials, shower facilities and things like phone-charging services—really important things like that—at this time when they need this sort of support. Can I also point out that it is not just the councils that have been directly adversely affected to this degree; it is also other councils that have donated staff and equipment to the badly affected councils. It is a time when the local government sector really comes to the fore. As I have said in this chamber a number of times, local governments do not get anywhere near the credit for the fantastic work they do, and this is just another example of them actually supporting their community in an absolutely magnificent way. I just want to give them a shout-out again. Members interjecting. CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2452 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Mr LEANE: On a point of order, President, I was actually acknowledging the great work of local councils and their staff, and I was constantly interjected on with absolute rubbish from the opposition. I think it is about time people actually showed some respect for real workers in this time when there are actually people making a difference, compared to others that just talk rubbish. Mr Davis: On the point of order, President, I agree with the minister that we should respect local government, and that is why I am saddened that he voted the way he did earlier today. The PRESIDENT: Order! As I have said to you before, interjections in this place—interjections while I am talking, too—are not welcome, especially when someone is making a ministers statement or a members statement, things like that. Respect should always be a priority. WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (12:48): Regarding today’s questions and answers: Mr Meddick to agriculture, Ms Tierney, two days, question and supplementary; Ms Bath to Ms Tierney again, emergency services, two days, question and supplementary; Ms Patten to Ms Stitt, one day, question and supplementary; and Mr Bourman to Ms Symes, two days, question and supplementary. Regarding the supplementary question through Ms Tierney, I will check Hansard and get back to you. Constituency questions WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (12:48): My question is for the Minister for Local Government—sorry, he has just left the room—and concerns the recent instructions to regional councils to hold all council meetings remotely. Minister, can you confirm that this directive will be immediately rescinded in line with the relaxation of COVID restrictions announced today? Can you further confirm it will not be reinstated in similar circumstances? Councils have proven they are perfectly able to conduct virus-safe gatherings—safely distanced, sanitised and masked. If we can have 50 people at a wedding or 300 in a nightclub or a brothel, why should democracy be downgraded? Forcing councillors to sit alone behind computers and excluding all members of the public from meetings is no recipe for public engagement or good government. I ask the minister to respond to the clear view of the councils of Western Victoria, many of which have contacted me, and treat council meetings with COVID-safe plans like any other regional business. SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:50): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development and Minister for Veterans, the Honourable Shaun Leane. My question relates to the portfolio of suburban development. The past few years have seen the suburban revitalisation program deliver improved livability, amenity and opportunity in the South Eastern Metropolitan Region. The suburban revitalisation and recovery program works with key local stakeholders to help plan and deliver economic infrastructure, community development and place-making initiatives that drive social and economic outcomes in specific activity centres. Can the minister please update me on this portfolio and how it will continue to support activity centre renewal programs in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region? SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:51): My constituency question is for the Minister for Health. My office has received many emails from constituents in my electorate detailing various examples of being denied medical care. I have heard of people being denied access to pharmacies to fill scripts, people who have been denied entry to the local GP clinic and people being turned away from hospitals and almost being denied entry to visit psychologists. This is all due to people not being able to wear masks. They include examples where children who are sick or injured are denied or have delayed treatment. They include people who are seeking treatment for PTSD, CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2453 possibly related to the very reason that they cannot wear a mask. What is being done to ensure that all residents of the South Eastern Metropolitan Region have access to adequate medical care? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (12:52): My question is for the Minister for Public Transport and again concerns the inadequacies of the current public town bus service in Greater Shepparton. The service clearly fails to meet the needs of the Greater Shepparton community. It only offers a limited timetable on Saturdays, and there are no services on Sundays or public holidays. There is also currently no bus service at all to Tatura, the third-largest town in the community. I have been calling for a review of the town bus service since 2015, most recently in October 2020. The minister’s response to my latest contribution spoke of the opening of the Greater Shepparton Secondary College in January 2022. Whilst I agree that the transportation of 2700 students to one campus will create countless problems, the current town bus service is a separate issue, and a comprehensive review is urgently required. Will the minister ensure an immediate review of the public bus network in Greater Shepparton is conducted to ensure services that meet the transportation needs of the local community are implemented? SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (12:53): My constituency question is directed to the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development and Minister for Veterans, Shaun Leane. My question relates to the portfolio responsibilities of local government. We know that gender equality is an issue on all councils, and it was great to see more women elected to councils in my electorate of South Eastern Metropolitan Region in the 2020 council elections, but we still have a long way to go to achieve the goal of 50 per cent women councillors and mayors by 2025. Can the minister please update me on what the Andrews Labor government is doing to ensure that women across the state are encouraged to participate in local government and take up leadership roles within the community? WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (12:53): My question is to the Minister for Health from Karen and Danny Ellis, who volunteer their mending, fixing and repairing skills throughout Victoria. Will the minister ensure that the volunteer policy of Djerriwarrh Health Services is in line with other policies around the state? Karen and Danny are prevented from volunteering 2 hours once a month at community events at a council-run centre. This is ironic as they can volunteer across Victoria but not in their own community of Melton or at Sunbury Neighbourhood House. To participate they have to sign a five-page contract with Djerriwarrh for legal liability requirements. They have contacted Djerriwarrh Health Services’ insurer, who has informed them an informal volunteer is only required to sign in and out of a venue to be covered. WESTERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (12:55): My constituency question is to the acting Minister for Water, who I understand is Mr Wynne. I recently visited Mr Ludwig Schwall at his Alpha Pumps factory in Sunshine. Mr Schwall is justifiably proud of the standard of his products and the workmanship that goes into them. As he explained to me, his rotor pumps, drive shafts, coupling rods and other products are of a superior standard to products produced overseas—and at a lower cost. It is therefore mystifying that Alpha Pumps has been unable to find a market for its wares with Melbourne Water for quite some time. Minister, can you explain why a government instrumentality sends money overseas by its purchase of these products offshore in preference to buying local, superior and less expensive products made in Sunshine, Victoria? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Ms MAXWELL (Northern Victoria) (12:56): My question is to the Minister for Health and is on behalf of the Kiewa CFA, who are very keen to support their community in providing first-aid CONSTITUENCY QUESTIONS 2454 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 response to serious incidents. Since 2008 there has been an agreement in place between Ambulance Victoria and the former CFA, now FRV, for integrated stations to provide emergency medical responses. Many areas in northern Victoria are subject to lengthy wait times for an ambulance, and Kiewa CFA seeks to become a pilot as the first-aid responders to support their local community and help save lives. So my question to the minister is: will the government discuss with Kiewa CFA their proposal to establish a pilot for first-aid responses? NORTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (12:56): Good afternoon. My constituency question today is for the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. The people of Glenroy in my electorate of Northern Metropolitan Region are concerned about the illegal dumping of rubbish, antisocial behaviour and hoon driving. Recently I invited Glenroy locals to complete my survey, and I thank those people who responded. Glenroy is such a diverse and wonderful community. The Glenroy residents care for their community, and they want a cleaner and safer suburb in which to raise their families. The question for the minister is: will the minister commit to extra police patrols to better defer graffiti and antisocial behaviour near the Glenroy shops and surrounding streets; to deter illegal dumping of rubbish near railway lines, in May Street and in Robertson Reserve; and to deter hoon behaviour on Glenroy Road, Pascoe Vale Road and Daley Street? WESTERN VICTORIA REGION Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (12:57): My question is for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and is asked by Shane Howard of the Belfast Coastal Reserve Action Group, who gave evidence to the biodiversity and ecosystem loss inquiry last week on the sorry state of Tower Hill Wildlife Reserve, home to a vast array of native species. This once magnificent reserve, the third national park declared in the world, is in decline, overrun with weeds, and its animal residents are at risk because of the annual killing spree that is duck shooting. The site is not only a popular tourist destination but is culturally and historically significant to First Nations people, and the disrespect shown by government in not declaring the reserve completely off limits to shooting is not only outrageous but is completely at odds with why it was established as Victoria’s first national park. Will the minister act, declare the reserve a distinctive area landscape, prohibit the shooting of native wildlife there and instigate a complete rejuvenation program overseen by Parks Victoria in partnership with local First Nations representatives? The PRESIDENT: Mr Meddick, I take it you are asking that question to the Minister, correct? Mr MEDDICK: That is correct, yes. SOUTHERN METROPOLITAN REGION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:59): My question is to the Minister for Local Government, and it relates to the lack of parking that is provided along St Kilda Road. I am particularly concerned about the areas around Albert Park Road going up towards Toorak Road, keeping in mind the Metro Tunnel works that have been taking place but also all of those apartments that are along St Kilda Road. I have had a number of constituents who have spoken to me about their concerns that car parking has been taken away from around their buildings. They do not have room for carers to be attending some people within the buildings, there is no room for tradies to come and park, and there is a real lack of parking space. So my question to the minister is: what discussions is he having with the local councils—the City of Port Phillip, the City of Melbourne and others—around the lack of parking along St Kilda Road that is not providing adequate services to those people in the apartments along St Kilda Road? NORTHERN VICTORIA REGION Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (13:00): My constituency question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Northern Victoria is beautiful, but that beauty also provides opportunities MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2455 for devastating fires, as we saw last year. The volunteers of the CFA are a vital part of the fabric of northern Victoria, keeping us safe, but these volunteers are struggling to get trained, and the government’s fire services changes and the Fire Rescue Victoria enterprise agreement with the United Firefighters Union are to blame. Paid instructors are only allowed to work two nights a week and are limited to working five weekends every eight weeks thanks to the enterprise agreement, which has also banned casual and part-time instructors. Volunteers in the CFA have jobs around which they need to fit their training, creating a backlog which must be cleared before the fire season arrives. What is the minister doing to ensure these roadblocks to the CFA volunteer training are removed before lives in northern Victoria are put at risk? Mr Ondarchie: On a point of order, President, I bring to your attention the standing orders requiring appropriate time frames for responses to questions I ask on behalf of my constituents. This government purports to be a transparent and open government. I have been waiting 55 days for an answer to a constituency question asked on 29 April to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety and for 29 days for an answer to a question to the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. My constituents are keen to get their responses. Ms Pulford: On the point of order, President, Mr Ondarchie, let us undertake to follow those matters up. Thank you for providing the details on the record, so we can do that quickly. Sitting suspended 1.01 pm until 2.07 pm. Motions ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS PROGRAMS Debate resumed. Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:07): I now continue the contribution I have for Mr Grimley’s motion. I would like to list some of the initiatives and measures that our government has made. First of all, there is the Drug Court. It is an alternative sentencing option for an accused with a history of offending and drug and alcohol use in cases where the offending has occurred under the influence of or to support substance use. So with that purpose a Drug Court was introduced in the Magistrates Court at Dandenong back in 2002 and then it was later expanded to the Melbourne Magistrates Court in 2016. The Drug Court model looks to address the underlying factors that contribute to offending and also to provide participants with an opportunity to receive treatment and stay drug and crime free in the community. It has been, the Drug Court, independently evaluated and shown to deliver cost-effective, positive outcomes for the community and participants through improvements in health and wellbeing for participants and also a reduction in recidivism. In fact a 2014 independent evaluation found that it has delivered a substantial saving in imprisonment costs and a nearly 30 per cent reduction in recidivism for those who had completed the program. Also, about the seriousness of the offences, it has been found that in particular there has been a 90 per cent reduction in trafficking offences and a 54 per cent reduction in violence with a weapon offences. The government is now contributing $35 million to facilitate the expansion of the Drug Court to Ballarat and Shepparton. The funding will also enable a two-year pilot of the County Court Drug Court, which is due to commence this year, very soon. We also have addressed alcohol and other drug issues through sentencing orders. Community corrections orders in particular can contain drug and alcohol monitoring or treatment conditions, or both, and also other diversion programs for low-level offences can also require offenders to address issues such as AOD. The 2021–22 budget provides in fact $14.4 million over three years in additional funding for improved oversight and support of offenders on community correction orders. Not just that, but we also look at post-sentencing options. The SCRAM, as I mentioned at the beginning— secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring—which has been referenced by Mr Grimley in his MOTIONS 2456 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 motion, is also used for some offenders on parole and serious violent sex offenders on post-sentencing supervision orders. It has been a tool to provide 24/7 monitoring of alcohol abstinence conditions. We also support AOD treatment. It is a wraparound approach. We have case management which is evidence-based for offenders with AOD issues. We understand that AOD treatment is not always a linear journey from A to B and people may experience lapses and relapses along the road to overcoming issues of addiction. We recognise that AOD use is a health issue and therefore needs a primarily health-based response. For that reason Corrections Victoria adopts evidence-based, individualised and differentiated case management. I would also like to mention in the last minute the support for victims. The Andrews Labor government is committed to putting victim-survivors at the heart of our justice system in Victoria. We are committed to reforming the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal. We have a new administrative scheme which would mean that no courts and no judges are involved in the decision of financial assistance. It will broaden eligibility for and categories of assistance. It will simplify the application process and better acknowledge the harm faced by victims and their families. So we are always looking to consider ways to reduce recidivism and make the community safer. Thus we welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about the merits of monitoring and compliance approaches from other jurisdictions to maximise offender engagement with AOD treatment and support and enhance the safety of our community. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (14:13): I am pleased to speak as the first speaker for the opposition on Mr Grimley’s motion. It is an important motion, because recidivism is an enormous challenge for our criminal justice system. At the heart of Mr Grimley’s motion, whilst offering various alternatives for consideration, including the New Zealand alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment program and South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety program—which is described as swift, certain and fair— there are many avenues to be explored to reduce recidivism. Tackling recidivism is now more important than ever given the ballooning recidivism rate for prisoners and those on a community correction order. I recall during the term of the Napthine and Baillieu governments that the recidivism rate in the mid- 30 per cent range, a little bit higher, a little bit lower, was criticised by Labor. It was criticised as being too high, a failed prison system, creating community risk and community danger. The most recent budget papers that just went through this place revealed that the rate of return to prison within two years, the 2020–21 expected outcome, is 44.1 per cent—44.1 per cent. It is an absolute scandal. Coming on the back of the IBAC investigation that was tabled in the Parliament yesterday regarding Port Phillip Prison and some of the nefarious activities and other things going on there, when you look at the data, look at the outcomes from our prison system, and then you look at reports such as that IBAC report that was tabled yesterday, it is clear the corrections system is failing, and it is impacting on community safety. Those figures speak for themselves: the rate of return to prison within two years of 44.1 per cent expected outcome for 2020–21, and the target for 2021–22 is 41 per cent. The government has given up on even trying. For two prisoners released today, they expect nearly one of those prisoners to be back in jail within two years. It is a revolving door justice system under the Andrews Labor government. We have seen, similarly, other performance measures from the budget: successful completion of supervised court orders, 2020–21 expected outcome, only 60 per cent; successful completion of violence-related programs for family violence offenders in community corrections, expected outcome 2020–21, only 60 per cent. It is simply not good enough, and it just does not match the rhetoric from the Andrews government. I think Mr Grimley’s motion is an important one, because we need to look at new, innovative ways to tackle reoffending and to break the cycle of crime. Mr Grimley referred to the need for more AOD beds and counselling and more investment in that space, and it is true. We need more investment in that space to help people with alcohol and drug dependencies get the treatment they need to break that MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2457 dependency, and if that dependency is linked to offending, to hopefully break one of the causal factors to that offending and that recidivism. Mr Grimley spoke positively of the parole reforms and the use of electronic monitoring and SCRAM technology, the SCRAM devices, in parole monitoring, and I was pleased to implement those reforms as corrections minister that I think have improved community safety. At the time the electronic monitoring was scoffed at by some. I remember Labor members scoffing at the idea of an ankle bracelet. It could be easily cut off, they would say. The batteries would run out, and it would no longer be active. But as one of a number of measures, it has proven to be successful. The early SCRAM bracelets had issues with the technology, like all new technologies, but that is now settled and, as I understand it, it is technology that is working effectively. So it is worthy of considering how to deploy that technology particularly in the community corrections space, as some of it already is, and to also consider it as part of a sentencing option regime. But it should not come at the cost of ensuring that those offenders that are a risk to community safety are removed from the community, so they cannot reoffend. If we look at the purposes of the Sentencing Act 1991—to provide just punishment, a deterrent, rehabilitation, denunciation and community protection, the five purposes set out in section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act—clearly the community must be protected in certain circumstances where an offender is a risk to the community of reoffending. That risk may be mitigated by appropriate supervision. It may be mitigated by the deployment of technologies. In some cases that risk cannot be mitigated and that offender will need to be jailed, to be removed from the community for the protection of the community. But the simple proposition is that recidivism has ballooned under Labor. Labor’s attempts have failed, and I am deeply concerned that the corrections commissioner is off looking after hotel quarantine. We have a corrections minister that does not seem to be across her brief, does not seem to be across doing the job that needs to be done. We have seen the comings and goings of several corrections ministers in recent years, and we need stability and leadership in the corrections system and clear policy direction about how we are going to tackle recidivism. If I may, as an aside, I express my disappointment that the attempts to tackle recidivism as part of the contract for the Ravenhall prison are for sentenced prisoners only, providing them with connection to ongoing training and connections in the community on release as part of the contract with the private operator. That framework, which was established to do exactly what we are talking to today—that is, tackle reoffending—has been broken by the government because of the ballooning remand prisoner numbers. Prisoners are being held in jail for extended periods because our court system is overburdened and our waitlists in our court system have ballooned. Before COVID they were already bad, but with elements of the court system not having had the technology they needed, they are now playing catch-up to try and tackle those court waitlists. Prisoners on remand are less likely to do programs, and when they are less likely to do programs they are less likely to address the causes of their offending behaviour. So when a prisoner is released with time served, after being on remand for eight months or 10 months and not undertaking programs, of course they are more like to reoffend. Because they have not been sentenced they have not been given the programs. They have not been forced to do programs that they need to do, as I say, to address the causes of their offending behaviour. There are many elements to this very important issue. Sitting at its heart is community safety. The simple fact is the community is less safe now because under the Andrews government recidivism has grown enormously: it has ballooned. The government’s own budget numbers state a 44.1 per cent expected outcome of recidivism for prisoners for 2020–21. It is not good enough, and I am pleased that this debate is focusing on possible solutions and alternatives that the government should explore and the government should consider. MOTIONS 2458 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (14:23): I am pleased to rise to speak to Mr Grimley’s motion. I think, following on from Mr O’Donohue, for the Legal and Social Issues Committee’s inquiry into the justice system: challenge accepted. You are right: the system is broken, and we do need to repair it and we do need to explore all ways of doing that. We need to understand fundamentally why people are in our justice system, what has caused them to get there. We know a significant number of people in our prison and justice system will come from five postcodes in Victoria. We know that this is about disadvantage and it is about trying to do things differently and certainly looking at prevention rather than, as we constantly say, dealing with these issues by putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Mr Grimley’s motion today is looking at expanding electronic monitoring for offenders and introducing 24/7 alcohol monitoring as a sentencing option. From the briefings and certainly going to the motion that Mr Grimley has put on the notice paper, the Hinch party would like to see a trial of this in Victoria. At the outset I welcome the thorough approach that Mr Grimley has taken to this motion. We were provided, along with I think all of you in here, briefings and plenty of information that explained the rationale and the reasoning for Mr Grimley putting forward this motion. And Mr O’Donohue is right: the fundamental base of this is about reducing recidivism. I think that that is honourable and it is something that I certainly deeply care about, because as I mentioned, the system is failing. It is failing its victims. And one of the areas it is really inadequate on is alcohol and other drug treatment. We know that our prisons now are almost de facto institutions for people experiencing mental health issues, issues with trauma, alcohol and drug dependence and homelessness, as we heard in our homelessness inquiry. In the last budget we put more money into prisons than we did into housing, so we really are looking at housing our disadvantaged population in prisons rather than in public housing. If you look at the IBAC report released yesterday, again, it shows that certainly our corrections system has huge problems. We have got prison officers bringing in contraband, stealing from prisoners and selling it on the market. Prisons are not safe, especially for someone with mental health issues, so any policy that diverts people away from them should be considered. I certainly think alcohol monitoring of offenders can be another tool in our toolbox for repeat offenders. We know that well over half of prisoners who enter into our prison system have got alcohol and other drug issues. We also know that over half of them actually have mental health issues and for many of them that has actually been diagnosed. Mr Grimley has made a very strong argument for electronic monitoring, but I do not think it is a panacea to recidivism by any means. Whether it is a cost-effective way to reduce recidivism, I think that is worth investigating. I must say that I was surprised when we reached out to some stakeholders about this motion, and we reached out in particular to the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education—FARE. They were extraordinarily, emphatically opposed to this, which I must say I was not actually expecting. They said the devices are stigmatising, they breach human rights, they are expensive and they are ineffective; and the technology is unreliable, it does not reduce reoffending, it does not reduce prison populations, it increases incarceration and it does not treat problematic alcohol use. Mr Grimley mentioned the trial in New Zealand of ankle bracelets as part of effectively their drug court over there, and they found that 32 per cent of offenders committed a crime while wearing the bracelet. The reconviction rate generally for offenders on community sentence orders is around 25 per cent, so they are actually seeing higher rates of reoffending. Look, this was a very small study, but it probably just shows that this is not a magic bullet. I will note that Mr Grimley does not attest that this is a magic bullet either, that he also agrees that this is another tool in our toolbox, as I said. I note that Mr Grimley also in his briefings to us said that any trial would be a voluntary trial, so the offender would agree voluntarily to enter into the trial. But it was interesting when FARE reported to us that the largest group amongst the interviewed offenders in the New Zealand trial explained the MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2459 testing had no effect on their substance use because they had already made the decision to abstain from drugs and alcohol. And I wonder, in a voluntary circumstance, whether that is who you are going to get. If it does help someone in maintaining their abstinence from alcohol, if that is what they want to do, then it should not be dismissed. I think the evidence is out, which is why the motion asking for more consideration of this is welcome, and I certainly would hope that the justice inquiry is going to get an opportunity to do that as well. But may I also say: treatment, treatment, treatment. VAADA, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, said that even if we were to go down this path of drug testing as part of sentencing, then we need far greater treatment services. The wait times for treatment are absolutely appalling, and this will not necessarily be a cheaper option. I note that there has also been an investigation into the notion of using electronic monitoring in Queensland. The Queensland Human Rights Commission stated that electronic monitoring breaches the human rights of privacy, that the lack of controls in how the information is gathered is being used by governments and that it leads to stigmatisation and there is a possibility of vigilantism. This Saturday is Support. Don’t Punish day, and this goes to the heart of what we are doing. Certainly if you look at the Sentencing Act 1991, punishment is just one of those objectives, but when we look at the recidivism rates of the people we punish, that is not working. We need to be looking at how we can keep our communities safe, how we can rehabilitate people and how we can provide the safety nets that people need so that they do not reoffend. Electronic monitoring and these types of bracelets may be one of those things, but I would say employment would be one of the major solutions. We know that employment is the biggest protector against brushing against the justice system. We know education is another protector and we know housing is a massive protector. In some ways, once we get all the things that we know in order, then maybe we should start looking at things that we know less about again. I certainly do not oppose this motion, and I thank Mr Grimley for raising it. I think it has certainly enabled me to look at this issue. We are all very busy and I know we do not get opportunities to do free reading, but I did learn a lot in considering this motion. I really welcome this being part of the discussion of the justice inquiry, and I will leave it at that. Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (14:33): I rise today in support of the motion moved by Mr Grimley. Minimising recidivism should be one of the key focuses of our justice system, and we know that at the heart of reducing recidivism is rehabilitation. Frequently people who have resorted to criminal activity have experienced severe hardship and face many intersecting layers of disadvantage, including living with the experiences of poverty, family violence, racism and trauma, which work to further entrench disadvantage. Further, we know many factors can contribute to those with previous contact with the justice system reoffending, including a lack of safe and affordable housing, unemployment, income insecurity and experiences of family violence or relationship breakdown. That is why I was proud earlier this year to speak to and support the introduction of a spent convictions scheme in this state. We recognise that the use of alcohol and other drugs is a factor that contributes to much of the offending within our community. That is why it is essential that we have effective evidence-based programs in place to support people in overcoming their substance issues. The 2021–22 Victorian budget delivered crucial demand funding with an injection of $5.1 million into community supports and $1.3 million into the forensic alcohol and other drugs system to ensure that Victorians can access care from all points of the AOD service system. This is alongside funding that specifically addresses the intersection of mental health and alcohol and other drug use, as recommended in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. This includes $22.4 million to support the capacity and capability of the mental health and addiction workforce, who do such vital work in breaking cycles of addiction and supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our state. It also includes investment to establish statewide specialist services and addiction medicine specialist hubs for people living with mental illness and substance use or addiction. MOTIONS 2460 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

This government is more than doubling the number of residential rehabilitation beds in Victoria, from the 208 beds we inherited in 2014 to 502 beds as our investments are rolled out right across the state. Once all of our beds are operational, over 1000 more Victorians each year will have access to residential rehabilitation services—and we are well on our way, with 412 residential rehabilitation beds currently in operation across the state. Previously our mental health system lacked options to provide integrated treatment, care and support. This meant those seeking help had to navigate two distinct systems to treat their interrelated needs separately. This government is committed to improving community safety and considering all approaches to strengthen our justice system responses. We have a strong track record of using innovative justice models and approaches to target the underlying causes of drug and alcohol offending, with treatment supported by monitoring and compliance. Electronic monitoring and secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring technology as proposed in Mr Grimley’s motion is already an essential part of the government’s response to the management of high-risk and recidivist offenders in the community. I would like to discuss some of the reforms that this government has already made to our legal system responding to alcohol- and drug-related offending, from Drug Court and alternative sentencing options to post-sentence options. The Drug Court is an alternative sentencing option for an accused with a history of entrenched offending and/or drug and alcohol use in cases where the offending has occurred under the influence of or to support substance use. Since its introduction in Dandenong in 2002 the Drug Court has been expanded to the Melbourne Magistrates Court in my electorate. It uses an innovative therapeutic approach incorporating sanctions and rewards to assist offenders to address their substance dependence. The court’s model looks to address the underlying factors that contribute to offending, providing participants with an opportunity to receive treatment and stay drug and crime free in our community. The Drug Court has been independently evaluated and shown to deliver cost-effective, positive outcomes for the community and participants through improvements in health and wellbeing for the participants and a reduction in recidivism. In 2014 an independent evaluation found that the Drug Court delivered a substantial saving in imprisonment costs and a nearly 30 per cent reduction in recidivism for those who completed the program. It also identified a reduction in the seriousness of offences, in particular a 90 per cent reduction in trafficking offences and a 54 per cent reduction in violence with weapon offences. Overall the report concluded that the Drug Court delivers cost-effective, positive outcomes for the community and participants, as evidenced by the improvements in health and wellbeing for the participants and the reduction in recidivism. Building on these successes, the 2019–20 Victorian budget invested $35 million to facilitate the expansion of the Drug Court in the Magistrates Court to Ballarat and Shepparton. That funding will also enable a two-year pilot of the County Court Drug Court, which is due to commence this year. In addition to the Drug Court, Victoria’s other courts and other decision-makers can tailor sentence orders to address an offender’s alcohol and/or drug dependence. Community correction orders can contain drug or alcohol monitoring or treatment conditions or both, which can be coupled with judicial monitoring conditions to enable court supervision of compliance. Diversion programs for low-level offences can also require offenders to address issues such as alcohol or drug use. The Labor government has made significant investments and reforms across multiple budgets in order to improve community safety and ensure that offenders being managed in the community are properly and appropriately supervised. The 2021–22 budget provides $14.4 million over three years in additional funding for improved oversight and support of offenders on community correction orders. Prior to this the Andrews government’s 2015–16 and 2017–18 budgets—a little before my time— provided record funding for additional community correction services staff and new officers which support a new service delivery model which has reduced caseloads and targeted resources to the highest risk and most complex offenders. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2461

There are options for addressing a person’s alcohol and/or drug issues after their sentence is completed. Secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring, which is referred to in Mr Grimley’s motion, is currently used for some offenders on parole and for serious violent or sex offenders on post-sentence supervision orders as a tool to provide 24/7 monitoring of alcohol abstinence conditions. Additionally, for those who have committed offences relating to alcohol and drug use on our roads we have alcohol interlock devices. Alcohol interlock devices are a critical tool in targeting drink-driving offenders and reducing road safety risk. In 2018 this government introduced other reforms to strengthen the response to drink driving. All people found guilty of drink driving now face mandatory licence suspension and mandatory interlock conditions for at least six months if and when they are relicensed. This government recognises that treatment for alcohol and other drug use is not always a linear journey. Many people who have drug or alcohol problems experience lapses and relapses along the road to overcoming issues of addiction and abuse. Alcohol and other drugs are a health issue and therefore need a primarily health-based response supported by harm minimisation strategies. Monitoring and compliance approaches can play an important role in engaging offenders with treatment. For that reason Corrections Victoria adopts an evidence-based individual and differentiated case management approach to support the unique needs of each offender. This includes targeting resources and experience to high-risk offenders where the greatest impact can be made in reducing reoffending, improving order completion rates and reducing recidivism. Research has shown us that rather than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive approach, individualised offender case management gives rise to higher rates of order completion and better recidivism outcomes. Before I conclude my remarks I feel it is important to acknowledge the impact that offending has on victim-survivors. The Andrews Labor government is committed to putting victim-survivors at the heart of justice in Victoria. The voices of victim-survivors and their families are a powerful and important part of the justice system and play a critical role in this government. We are committed to reforming the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal to improve this critical service for victims of crime. These reforms will create a more fair, timely and trauma-informed system for financial assistance for victims of crime and their families. The new administrative scheme will mean no courts and no judges are involved in deciding financial assistance. It will broaden eligibility and categories of assistance, simplifying the application process to better acknowledge the harm faced by victims and their families. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (14:43): I rise today to speak to the Justice Party’s motion on making sure that this house notes that alcohol and other drugs greatly contribute to repeat offending and that many courts, including drug courts, that actually use drug and alcohol testing and alcohol monitoring technology see a reduction in alcohol and other drug related crimes and that drug and alcohol testing and monitoring can actually provide offenders with incentives to abstain from alcohol and have the ability to provide wraparound services. The Justice Party also acknowledges that Victoria already offers many regular testing programs, including SCRAM—secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring—for parolees. They also want us to note that in New Zealand there is a community trial, and they would hope that this government actually looks at other equivalents around the world that we could possibly use in Victoria. They hope, and I do so hope, that the government actually investigates the New Zealand option; the option that is in South Dakota, which is called ‘swift, certain and fair’; as well as looking at the SCRAM process that is in the United Kingdom. I find, strange as it may seem, that I am continually surprised by the government’s constant need to raise revenues by fines and penalties and to throw money to treat the results of a problem rather than addressing the cause of the problem. Now, this is especially so with our repeat offenders with alcohol and other drug issues. Four out of every five people who are charged with drink driving or drug driving are given a fine. Some are disqualified, some have their cars impounded, some get an interlock device, but they still seem to reoffend. This motion is just common sense. How simple is it to defer a sentence and to treat the cause of the problem, and why wouldn’t we hand down alcohol monitoring technology as a sentencing option, MOTIONS 2462 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 particularly when it has been so successful in so many other parole systems around the world? A 96.5 per cent sober rate they have achieved. Now, this motion, to put it simply, is a no-brainer. It treats the problem at the source, it saves the pain and suffering of victims and families, and if this was adopted it could be one of the most successful programs that this government has ever run. I commend the Justice Party for bringing this forward, and I will be supporting this motion today. Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (14:47): I too rise to speak on Mr Grimley’s motion 590 about drug and alcohol recidivism. I thank Mr Grimley for bringing this motion to this house. As mentioned by my colleague Dr Kieu, I want to reiterate that the Andrews Labor government is committed to improving community safety and considering all approaches to strengthen our justice system’s responses. It is known that alcohol and drugs contribute towards many offences in our state. It is important for us to have effective and evidence-based programs that will help and support the people who are facing substance issue problems. If you are able to support the offenders and help them get better, they are less prone to offending in the future. Offences like driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs can have significant human and fiscal capital losses. Alcohol and drugs also contribute towards some family violence incidents. The Andrews Labor government has a strong track record of targeting issues of drug and alcohol offending with innovative criminal justice approaches. We understand that technology can be used to provide improved monitoring capabilities. The government has considered electronic monitoring and SCRAM CAM technology—that is, secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring—to be a part of our response to the management of high-risk and recidivist offenders in the community. We are also delivering and expanding programs that assist members of our community to address their substance dependence, including programs specific to the criminal justice system. I would like to talk a little bit about the Drug Court. The Drug Court is an alternative sentencing option for an accused with a history of entrenched offending and drug and/or alcohol use in cases where the offending has occurred under the influence of or to support substance use. The purpose of the Drug Court is to impose and administer an order called a drug and alcohol treatment order. In response to drug dependency and drug-related crimes the Drug Court of Victoria was set up as a multidisciplinary and multidepartmental approach. It emphasises a therapeutic response to these issues. It incorporates sanctions and rewards to assist offenders to address their dependence on drugs and other substances. Introduced in the Magistrates Court at Dandenong in 2002, the Drug Court was expanded to the Melbourne Magistrates Court in 2016. The court’s model looks to address the underlying factors that contribute to offending, providing participants with an opportunity to receive treatment and stay drug and crime free in the community. The Drug Court has been independently evaluated and shown to deliver cost-effective, positive outcomes for the community and participants through improvements in health and wellbeing for the participants. Drug courts have been a comprehensive response to complex problems, and there are a range of challenges that offenders face when it comes to the use of substances. It is also difficult for many offenders to find stability and a path towards recovery without the support of a monitoring system. Health, welfare and educational services that work with the Drug Court give support services which help offenders get on the path to recovery. Building on these successes, the 2019–20 Victorian budget invested $35 million to facilitate the expansion of the Drug Court in the Magistrates Court to Ballarat and Shepparton. That funding will also enable a two-year pilot for the County Court Drug Court, which is due to commence this year. We have also looked at addressing alcohol and other drugs issues through sentencing orders. Additional to the drug courts, other courts and decision-makers in Victoria can tailor sentencing orders to address an offender’s alcohol and other drugs dependence. Community correction orders, CCOs, can contain drug and alcohol monitoring or treatment conditions or both, which can be coupled with judicial monitoring conditions to enable court supervision of compliance. The community correction order is a flexible sentencing order that an offender serves in the community. A court can impose a MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2463 community correction order on its own or in addition to imprisonment or a fine. Diversion programs for low-level offences can also require offenders to address issues such as drug or alcohol use. The Labor government has made very significant investments and reforms across multiple budgets in order to improve community safety and ensure that offenders being managed in the community are appropriately supervised. We have also looked at post-sentence options for addressing a person’s alcohol and other drug issues after their sentence is completed. Secure, continuous, remote alcohol monitoring, SCRAM, is used for some offenders on parole and serious, violent or sex offenders on post-sentence supervision orders as a tool to provide 24/7 monitoring of alcohol abstinence conditions. It is also important to talk about responses to drink driving in this motion. Drink driving and driving under the influence of drugs is a key issue in road safety that requires a tailored response. Alcohol interlock devices are a critical tool in targeting drink-driving offences and reducing road safety risk. An alcohol interlock is an electronic breath test device that prevents a vehicle from starting if it detects alcohol present. It records all breath tests and any attempt to drive with alcohol present on a person’s breath. This helps prevent people from driving after having alcohol. It removes the risk of a person driving under the influence when they are facing a substance problem. In 2018 we introduced other reforms that strengthened our response to drink driving. The government recognises that alcohol and other drug treatments are not always a linear journey. Many people who use drugs or alcohol experience lapses and relapses along the road to overcoming issues of addiction and abuse. Alcohol and other drug use is a health issue which warrants a primarily health-based response. It has to be supported by harm minimisation strategies. Monitoring and compliance approaches can play an important role in engaging offenders with treatment. For that reason Corrections Victoria adopts an evidence-based, individualised and differentiated case management approach to support the unique needs of each offender. Under support for alcohol and other drugs treatment and rehabilitation the Andrews Labor government is more than doubling the number of residential rehabilitation beds in Victoria from the 208 beds we inherited in 2014 to 502 beds as our investments are rolled out across the state, with more than half of these new beds in regional Victoria. Once all of our new beds are operational, over 1000 more Victorians each year will be able to access residential rehabilitation services. And we are well on our way, with 412 residential rehabilitation beds currently in operation across the state. The Andrews Labor government is committed to putting victim-survivors at the heart of justice in Victoria. The voices of victim-survivors and their families are a powerful and important part of the justice system and play a critical role in this government. The Andrews Labor government is committed to reforming the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal to improve this critical service for victims of crime. That is why in the 2021–22 budget $54.6 million has been allocated to build the new financial assistance scheme, FAS, and improve services for victims. I would like to conclude by saying we are always looking to consider ways of reducing recidivism and making the community safer. Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (14:56): I am pleased to rise and speak on Mr Grimley’s motion on recidivism. Reducing recidivism and reducing the number of people incarcerated in Victorian prisons is a goal that has the potential to benefit community safety and taxpayers. Perhaps more importantly it has the potential to benefit people caught in a cycle of offending and incarceration. Assisting people to address issues in their lives, including addiction, can be a more efficient and compassionate way to address these problems than parking people in prison, with all of the high costs and poor outcomes associated with that. There is a range of reforms that could assist with this, including things such as legalising cannabis and removing criminal penalties for the use and possession of small amounts of all other drugs. This proposal from Mr Grimley is certainly worth investigating, and I would like to thank his office for providing a compressive briefing to my team. A voluntary sentencing deferral program, where a person could choose to participate in a program monitoring and ensuring sobriety, could create MOTIONS 2464 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 significant benefits. It is important that any trial of this program is clinically informed and voluntary to ensure that it benefits people who might be able to benefit from it without unnecessarily punishing other people. And I would like to add that I share some of Ms Patten’s concerns about this. The jury is still out on this type of system I think, but there would certainly have to be very close attention paid to how the data was going to be used, that was collected in these devices, did it create extra stigma. But I mean, that is part of the reason for having a trial of this type, right, so that you can get to the bottom of all of those things and look into them in detail. The recidivism rate in our prison system is far too high, and undoubtedly alcohol and drug use play a role. Nationally about 50 per cent of people released from prison return to the criminal justice system within two years. In the United States the Trump administration implemented the First Step Act, which created incentives for a federal prisoner to participate in vocational education, along with repealing mandatory sentences for drug crimes and restoring judicial oversight. In Texas, way back in 2005, they backed programs that shifted money from locking people up to rehabilitation programs and community-based punishments targeting non-violent offenders. Over the next decade Texas avoided $3 billion in new prison costs and saw serious property violence and sex crimes fall by 13 per cent, hardly a soft-on-crime approach. With hundreds of millions of dollars in the state budget for expanding our prison system, there is clearly an opportunity here to save money. Mr Grimley’s proposal is one worth investigating, but I would urge the government to go further and trial a range of programs to reduce incarceration and recidivism. Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (14:59): I rise also to make a contribution in regard to this motion, and I would like to thank Mr Grimley and the Hinch Justice Party for bringing this motion. It is calling for this house to note a range of things in regard to alcohol and other drugs and how this issue contributes to recidivism by offenders. I would invite Mr Grimley and the Hinch Justice Party to perhaps have a look at a wonderful alcohol and drug treatment facility in my region, the Eastern Metropolitan Region, called Turning Point. Turning Point really is a remarkable facility. It is based in Box Hill Hospital as part of Eastern Health. It is a public health response to alcohol and drug issues. I was fortunate enough to tour that facility and be given a detailed briefing and understanding of what they do and how they support people. What was obvious, and what became obvious and apparent, is the amount of people who have drug and alcohol issues who also present with other comorbidities, such as mental health problems and the like, but also a significant proportion of people who were attending this facility also had experienced trauma and perhaps were victims themselves throughout their lifetime. I guess what this highlighted for me was that sometimes a person’s relationship with drugs and alcohol in terms of their own addiction or perhaps offending is a very complex and complicated relationship, and there can be a range of factors that contribute to that. It is worthy to educate the broader community about why people offend— sometimes they offend because they are supporting their drug habit. Now, I am not making excuses and saying offending is right, but that is simply a function of an addiction. They need to support themselves somehow in funding that addiction. Why do they have an addiction? Because they might have comorbidities of mental health and they might be suffering from trauma. So it is a bit like unscrambling an egg; it is a complex kind of thing to try and do. I was just reading in the Guardian the other day an article that was talking about the medically supervised injecting room in Richmond, and one of the drug and alcohol workers who worked there said about the population of drug users who are using that facility that the trauma rates amongst that population were extraordinarily high. Again, it is important that we all gather a deeper understanding of why people are or do become addicted. They might be self-medicating. They want to ease their own pain, their psychological pain, or trauma or difficulties in their own lives. It is a difficult proposition: do we punish victims? It seems that our past approach has been to look to the criminal justice system to try and mete out punishments to people who either steal or have offended. But if that was the answer to it, it would have stopped years ago. So it is a complex problem. MOTIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2465

The work that Turning Point do in their facility at Eastern Health—I really recommend you reach out, and if you need any assistance in reaching out to them and looking at that I would be happy to facilitate that—is incredible. They also work with addicts to help them recognise their own triggers—when they are getting triggered and why they are getting triggered and how to deal with that—and to think about their own responses rather than falling back into old patterns. Again, if those sorts of skills can be taught—and you can see for yourself the success of the program—there is perhaps a way out of it that may not ultimately involve the justice system perhaps. That actually should give a sense of hope or optimism that rather than our jails becoming full of people who might be victims themselves or have suffered trauma, they can actually get the help that they need to deal with their health problems. Drug addiction is a health problem, just like mental health is a health problem. I am encouraged by the fact that the Andrews Labor government funds a public health response within our public hospital system at Turning Point to assist people to overcome their addiction problems. I know our position is that we are supporting this motion, but I do have some concerns about it. I guess perhaps it is the mixing of language or terminology about recidivism. Recidivism refers to repetitive crime—in and out, in and out. But we know, and as I have just said, and this is documented—I think Turning Point talked about this as well when I spoke to them—oftentimes with drug addicts the sorts of crimes that they are engaging in are crimes to financially support their habits. So perhaps if you can treat the addiction then those sorts of crimes will drop away as well, and that has certainly been a function and a finding of that program and that approach. I just wonder about the use of the alcohol monitoring device—and I note that it talks about the UK rolling this out and I note Mr Limbrick’s comments about a trial. Obviously it is great if you have a trial; you can work these things out. But I am not privy to what the UK is doing in terms of the terms of reference or the scope of that trial and what sorts of things they are actually evaluating. It is difficult to evaluate, and maybe it is a conflation to say if you put a SCRAM device on someone it stops them drinking. I would hazard to say it will not. I think you have to treat the underlying causes, and that is what the research tends to tell us, so I am not sure what the use of SCRAM might do. I note there is mention in the notes of serious violent sex offenders and the like. That is a different kind of context to what we are talking about now. I think this motion is more talking about drug and alcohol-type issues. Again, it is not clear in my own mind—and I apologise, Mr Grimley, I did not hear your contribution— whether we are talking about crime recidivism or whether we are talking about relapsing drug and alcohol or both and how they interact together. But in any event, I think there is hope, and I think we have to recognise that people who engage in alcohol and drug abuse are victims themselves. They often suffer trauma. They often suffer mental ill- health. They deserve our patience and understanding. However, having said that, it is also important that people who are victims of crimes that may have been perpetuated by people who were affected by drugs and alcohol are also supported. That is why in the 2021–22 budget $54.6 million has been allocated to build the new financial assistance scheme and improve services for victims, including undertaking detailed service design of the new scheme and focusing on how victims experience the service of requesting financial assistance, including key recommendations implementing the signature experience of victim recognition; building a major platform to help operate and administer the new system; preparing for the physical transition from the current Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal, or VOCAT, to a new business model; and $7.3 million for a victims legal service to provide legal advice to applicants and to victims seeking restitution and compensation orders. The Andrews Labor government is always looking for ways of considering reducing recidivism in our community and making the community safer. We welcome the opportunity to have discussions about the merits of monitoring compliance approaches from other jurisdictions, maximising offender engagement with alcohol and drug treatment and supporting and enhancing community safety. Again, I just have some trepidation about the language in this motion. I am not quite sure where it is meant to be going. But, as I said, I would encourage you to definitely have a chat to Turning Point at Eastern Health. That is a public health response. Personally I would like to see more of it. I feel very fortunate MOTIONS 2466 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 to have that facility in Eastern Metropolitan Region. I note that that facility is the only one of its kind in Australia, so we are very fortunate to have it here in Victoria. I will just reiterate the points I made earlier, that a high proportion of people who are under the effects of drugs or alcohol or suffer from addiction have suffered trauma themselves. A high proportion of those people also have co-morbidities like mental health problems. As Ms Watt talked about earlier, there are also high rates of family violence trauma within those families. Again, we are dealing with people who are victims themselves and who have suffered extreme trauma. They also need our support and understanding. This is a complex issue. It is not an easy issue to resolve. But I would like to commend you, Mr Grimley, on bringing this to the attention of the house and the debate on this issue today, and I look forward to seeing the trial of any of these mechanisms you have talked about in your motion proceeding. Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (15:09): I thank Mr Grimley for bringing this motion. I am certainly not going to oppose it. I do have some concerns, though, much along the lines raised by Ms Terpstra, Mr Limbrick and Ms Patten. Yes, we do have a problem with recidivism, and maybe we always have. Do not get me wrong: I think crime should be punished, whether it is committed by a person who is intoxicated or not, but we should be looking at treatment for addiction. Recidivism must not be confused with relapse. I think we have got to put more effort into providing facilities for treatment for drug addiction and give people the option for treatment and take a lot of the stigma away from addiction to drugs and alcohol. I fear that the push along these lines continues a little bit the war on drugs idea, but I like the idea that the treatment is voluntary. And I do think that judges need to have discretion when dealing with crime that is influenced by drugs and drug addiction too, and drug courts are probably a good move. But punitive incentives to abstain are not treatment for the underlying disease; it is the underlying mental state of the addict that must be treated, and I do not think recovery really can be achieved by fear of sanctions. But the monitoring thing sort of worries me too. Monitoring must be considered probably as an alternative to imprisonment; it is certainly an improvement on that. But depending on the crime, tracking an addict’s every move has to be considered as having human rights implications, and I would worry about the widespread use of it. I had better finish up in a second, but I just want to say that I am certainly not opposed to what is being investigated here, but we must have other considerations of how to handle addiction in our community, which is a sociological and societal problem. Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:11): Thanks to everybody who has made a contribution today to my motion. Just quickly, Mr Hayes, yes, this is just one tool in the toolkit, I suppose, and it is envisaged that the alcohol monitoring bracelets—which are not tracking addicts, by the way; it is not about GPS tracking, it is about monitoring the alcohol intake and trying to address those issues along with other overarching support services as well—themselves are not the be-all and end-all. It is the bracelets in conjunction with other things as well. If I can just address some issues in my time that I have left, Ms Patten spoke about how she cares about reducing recidivism, which is fantastic. The Foundation of Alcohol Research and Education— Ms Patten alluded to the fact that they were opposed to the motion. We did have conversations with FARE as well. That is not entirely what they indicated to us—they indicated that they had concerns with the motion. But I do agree with Ms Patten’s comments about the 32 per cent of offenders wearing a bracelet having breached. That is absolutely spot on. That is from the New Zealand model, and like I said in my contribution, the New Zealand model is not the gold standard. It is definitely not the gold standard. There are many other more longitudinal and more in-depth studies that have been conducted overseas in international jurisdictions that have proven otherwise, and it all comes down to the fact that in particular New Zealand does not have any framework to deal with the breaches. So without that framework to deal with the breaches, without that swift, certain and fair approach, if you do not have offenders knowing what the punishment can be, it lessens the ability for them to comply and the BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2467 encouragement of their sobriety. Also if you compare the New Zealand model to other SCRAM CAM models, like I said, you will find that there is less than 8 per cent breaching everywhere—for our parolees, for example, a 3.5 per cent breach out of 1000, so that study is quite large—because they have a consequence. New Zealand, like I said, does not have a consequence model, and therefore their breaches are higher—who would have thought! Also, Ms Terpstra, I absolutely would love to explore the option of heading to Turning Point to have a look at that one. I would perhaps suggest you just have a read of my speech, and that might allay any fears, I suppose, in terms of the terminology within the motion. I agree also with Mr Limbrick as well and with Mr Hayes and Ms Patten that this is not the answer; this is not the single magic bullet. It is just another tool, and it is a voluntary tool. It is a discretionary tool available for the courts, the magistrates, the offenders and so forth. Ms Patten did say that it is not necessarily a cheaper option. I would have to argue with that: $6.55 per day to monitor an alcohol monitoring bracelet compared to $320-odd a day for a prisoner would tend to argue against that. I will just sum up. I am not too sure who said this; some people say it might have been Albert Einstein, others disagree—the definition of ‘insanity’ is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This is what this motion is seeking to explore and consider, just other options to break the cycle of the recidivism that we have, the incredibly high recidivism rate. It is one tool in the toolkit. This motion is primarily about reducing the number of victims of crime, which is something which I and my party are very passionate about. On that note, I commend my motion to the house. Motion agreed to. Business of the house NOTICES OF MOTION Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (15:16): I move:

That the consideration of notice of motion, general business, 490, be postponed until later this day. Motion agreed to. Bills PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING AMENDMENT (GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY) BILL 2021 Second reading Debate resumed on motion of Ms CROZIER: That the bill be now read a second time. Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:16): Here we are again it feels like. But having said that, it is a very important topic to discuss so I am more than happy to discuss it. We are so transparent on this issue that actually we are happy to discuss it any day of the week, any time. Bring it on; we welcome it. We know that when we are looking at transparency of public health— Ms Crozier interjected. Ms TAYLOR: I am going to go to these points. Don’t you worry, Ms Crozier; we are going to go all over that. I just want to acquit some very important aspects of this that I think should be borne in mind, and bearing in mind that I was recently at a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) hearing where we saw some pretty disgusting behaviour, but I will go to that a bit later, because it seemed like people from the Liberal Party were not the slightest bit interested in having Professor Allen Cheng there or asking him any questions on this issue. You had him there in front of you, and we had feet on desks, we had thumping on tables, we had the most atrocious behaviour. They claim to be really interested in this topic, and yet they were completely flouting the whole premise of that BILLS 2468 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 process and having this esteemed medical health professional there in front of them. It is very hard to take them seriously on this issue, even though it is an incredibly serious issue, because when we serve it up to them on a platter, with some of the highest medical professionals in the country they ask no questions. I tell you, it is galling to say the least. On that note, Victoria’s senior public health team is made up of expert medical professionals and some of the leading public health physicians and infectious disease experts in the country—namely, Professor Brett Sutton. I have heard some disgusting things said about this man. He is an esteemed medical professional, but the way the opposition treats medical professionals in this country is just disgraceful, and it has happened over and over again. I think, ‘Why would you want to work in public health when you’re subjected to some of the behaviour that we’ve seen from those opposite?’. We also have Professor Allen Cheng, who co-chairs the commonwealth Advisory Committee on Vaccines. He is a leading infectious disease expert in Australia and works at the Alfred hospital. See, a case in point: they had him there in front of them—not one question to this man. So how do we take you seriously on this issue? Now, what is also interesting is there are numerous ways in which the expertise of the broader medical community is fed into the department, including through the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and the Communicable Diseases Network Australia; through other forums that include identified public health and clinical leads and experts in Victoria’s hospital system and clinicians in the state’s network of public health units; and through regular contact with major medical and allied organisations, just to name a few. But the other thing that has also been very disappointing, and it gets very confusing as well, is it seems like the diffuse sort of conspiracy theories that are peddled out from those opposite are trying to undermine the hardworking professional experts who have actually seen us through this pandemic. Now, when we are coming down to the very specifics of the bill and acquitting the various elements, let us go to that. I note to start with: the directions that are signed off by the chief health officer (CHO) are publicly available on the department website. They are publicly available. In addition, a monthly report is provided to the Parliament. The chief health officer formally briefs members of Parliament each month, including those opposite, as part of the state-of-emergency legislation extension and last year appeared before numerous COVID parliamentary inquiries for hours on end. This is in addition to the hours of media interviews conducted each and every day by our public health professionals. We know that our dedicated, hardworking health professionals are the most transparent across the country, and allegations to the contrary that are peddled out—I mean, we should call that out. I am absolutely certain there is not a question that has not been transacted with these public health professionals. And I am not saying we should not, but that is actually already happening and has been happening the whole way through the pandemic. No decision in the pandemic has been taken lightly, and that is the other thing. I think there is an inference that somehow there is flippant decision-making without looking at the medical premise upon which those decisions are made. Now, the chief health officer’s decision to put in place, for instance, the curfew was on the basis of proportionate, timely and expert evidence-based public health advice with the intent to reduce the serious risk to public health caused by COVID-19 driving the exercise of power. Further, the public health directions issued under the state of emergency must comply with the principles—because this has been debated a lot as well—of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Yes, we make no apologies that the priorities of our government are to keep Victorians safe and to ensure that we stay open, and these powers ensure we can do both. Now, I just want to have a deeper dive into this issue of accountability and transparency when we are looking at the measures that are in place, and I understand that they are not palatable. The pandemic is not palatable. It is awful. It has put everyone, it has put the whole world, under extraordinary strain and pressure, and it does bring to the government, the people who are ultimately accountable, the most BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2469 really incredible decisions that have to be made. Obviously no-one is wanting to have to make these decisions, but we cannot just sit on our hands and say, ‘Look, it’s really unpalatable. We just won’t go there; it’s just all too difficult’. We do not have that choice, because Victorians’ health is at risk and at stake. Now, if I can just acquit some of those elements, because I know there has been over and over again this issue of wanting more and more and more information. But let us look at exactly what information is being provided. As part of the extension of the state of emergency we agreed to table in Parliament monthly reports on the decision to extend the state of emergency and the factors that informed the decision. There are monthly briefings for members of this house with the CHO on the extension of the state of emergency at which there is an opportunity for members, including those opposite, to ask about the justification for the decisions. No-one is hiding. No-one is resiling from these questions and accountability, and even in PAEC as well we know that questions were asked on a whole lot of topics that are highly relevant to this, and they were responded to. The government agreed to and participated in a COVID-specific PAEC, which involved many hours of hearings at which those opposite were able to interrogate the decisions taken by this government. You could see this for yourselves; I am just pointing it out because there is a narrative running here as though nobody is sharing any information, nobody is transacting the heart and the essence of what is going on or the rationale behind this decision-making. I am here to just make it very clear exactly what is happening so those opposite can at least acknowledge—I am not sure; they may not do that either— that they have many, many opportunities to access all the information that they should require. The government holds daily press conferences to explain to the public and answer any questions from media about the decisions being taken by this government on a day-to-day basis. In fact over the course of the pandemic there have been countless hours of media conferences with every question responded to. The government has held hundreds of round tables with the business sector, community groups, local communities and community leaders. Daily the CHO actually releases a media release outlining all the daily cases, testing information and vaccination information. There are also fortnightly releases of the Doherty Institute’s genomic sequencing data that shows all genomic sequencing results undertaken in the state and links established. Since the beginning of the pandemic and the initial declaration of a state of emergency in Victoria the government has tabled a report to both houses of Parliament every month. As previously mentioned, the chief health officer also provides a briefing to members of this place on the report and an overview of his advice to government. Now, let us just look at this. Let us look at the numbers. The report has been tabled 15 times, and the 15th report tabled most recently, on 10 June 2021, is 377 pages long and details directions made by the chief health officer to keep the community safe from COVID-19. I am sure you are all across this report and have read every page and every line. Mr Limbrick: I have. Ms TAYLOR: Good. That is what I said: I am sure you are across it. I will place on the record that in attachment A, located at page 133, there is a document titled ‘Chief Health Officer Advice to Minister for Health’. It contains the public health advice provided to the minister by the chief health officer and is publicly available. What does this advice set out? All the way along with all the narrative that those opposite are running I kind of think, ‘Yes, but what is it that you want to know that you don’t know already when we look at the extent of the information that is provided?’. The advice sets out in detail the current situation of the pandemic, the current stats and outbreak numbers, the relevant legislation that informs the advice, the approach that the chief health officer takes to the advice, the rationale for the advice and last but not least the actual advice, located on page 149 and signed by the chief health officer. The report also outlines the considerations of evidence taken into account by the chief health officer. BILLS 2470 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Now, you might think that this is a little bit mechanical the way that I am explaining this, but I am just trying to in some way get across to those opposite exactly the level and extent of detail that is being provided to them and is available—the current epidemiological evidence for coronavirus transmission. So if we are looking at what the report outlines in terms of considerations and evidence taken into account by the chief health officer, this is what it is. I note I do not think they care, but I am just going to tell you because I think it is important we have it on public record, because to be honest I think it has been disgraceful the way we have seen this very negative, undermining narrative which has been quite pejorative to the medical profession and really a disgrace. I was raised to have respect for the medical profession, and I do not understand why they are so keen to undermine it. In any case, we have the current epidemiological evidence for coronavirus transmission and management in other jurisdictions, including the numbers of people potentially impacted and the seriousness of the threat; the nature, scale and effects of the harm, illness or injury that may develop; the availability and effectiveness of public health measures to eliminate or reduce the risk of coronavirus; and the proportionate response to address the serious public health risk. And as I read these elements out, I am thinking and reflecting on the number of press conferences and press releases and other investigative mechanisms that have been undertaken in order to transact these exact questions. What more is it that you actually need? The evidence? All right. Further to what the chief health officer is providing: case data and analysis, location and outbreak data and analysis, results from available modelling, emerging evidence from medical literature, lessons from transmission patterns and outbreaks and public health interventions in response to these in Victoria, Australia and internationally. Now, I do not know about you—as I said, I am not a medical professional—but that seems pretty thorough to me. But it seems there is some mysterious thing, something critical over there, that they know and need more than the medical professionals themselves. I do not know what it is, but they are running on that narrative. And they are hoping, just hoping, it might take hold. I am going to go further on that point. Let us do the hypothetical on this: us versus them—their very undermining, conspiracy- driven narrative versus us basing decision-making on all reasonable factors, including of course, and principally, public health advice. Of course they have to put forward an alternative government proposition. We get that. But what we are seeing is them spending their time peddling conspiracy theories and trying to undermine the hardworking professional experts who have actually led us through the pandemic. That is why we are all sitting here today. For all the time that they spend talking about the importance of public health advice, they have not actually made it clear to Victorians whether they would follow it or choose to ignore the experts and even put more lives at risk. What would they do? It is very easy to pose questions, undermine, back in conspiracy theories, make fun of our medical professionals and try to discredit them, but at the end of the day, what would they do? Would they not follow the public health advice? I put that question to you. In June 2020 the Shadow Minister for Health said as much when she suggested in an ABC radio interview that if they were in government they would ignore advice from the experts and let this wildly infectious and deadly disease run rampant, as it has in other countries. It is as good as that. The second wave of the virus was deadly even with the measures we took to keep Victorians safe. Ms Crozier: On a point of order, Acting President, I think the member, with all her best intentions, is trying to make a point, but she is actually taking it out of context and she is actually verballing me, so I would ask her to withdraw that. Ms Shing interjected. Ms Crozier: Ms Shing, I have got the point of order, if you do not mind. Acting President, if you could just direct the member to actually acknowledge that she has taken it right out of context and she is verballing me. BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2471

Ms Shing: On the point of order, Acting President, if you want to rule on that I am happy, otherwise I am very happy to respond to the point of order. I have been listening Ms Taylor’s contribution and I also heard what it is that Ms Crozier said. I think that if we are talking about verballing there is an awful lot of retraction that needs to happen across the board. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Mr Melhem): I do not think there is any point of order. I think it is all part of the debate. Ms TAYLOR: We know that the second wave of the virus was deadly even with the measures that we took to keep Victorians safe. Just imagine if we had ignored the advice of the medical experts. Can you imagine? I personally do not want to go there. Mr Finn: If we don’t know what it is, how could we ignore it? We don’t know what it is. You won’t tell us. Ms TAYLOR: I have just listed to you, Mr Finn—you obviously were not listening to me—all the various aspects that are transacted. Do you want me to repeat them? In fact you could read it back in Hansard, the various elements. I am not trying to be patronising in that comment. I am just in disbelief that matters such as case data and analysis, location and outbreak data and analysis, results from available modelling, emerging evidence from medical literature, lessons from transmission patterns and outbreaks and public health interventions in response to these in Victoria, Australia and internationally are not good enough. They need more. What is the magic pudding that they are looking for over there? They purport to have the magic solutions, don’t they—or not? Would they follow the public health advice? Could they flout it? Presumably not. And where would that leave us? I do not want to think about that, because for us the priority is obviously keeping Victorians safe, staying open and actually doing what we have to do to conquer this very, very difficult situation that the world is faced with. We know that these decisions have consequences, and making them is not easy—because that is the other inference that I find very irritating, that somehow it is just flippant and that there is no consideration of the impact economically, socially, mentally or otherwise. It could not be further from the truth, and it is extremely difficult to make these decisions. But as I said earlier in my contribution, when you are in government—well, I suppose you could choose to flout them, and we have seen some parts of the world where there has not been the same attention, can we say, paid to public health advice, where they have had drastic consequences. We know also that this disease is evolving, and we have to adapt and evolve with it. The recent emergence of more infectious strains, such as the delta strain of the Indian variant of this outbreak, illustrates that the virus continues to evolve and change, so we need the ability to adapt and to keep the community safe. We cannot just drop these measures and hope. Hope ain’t going to get us through, you know? At the end of the day, when you are in government, hope ain’t going to get you through. Ms Shing: It is all political pointscoring. Ms TAYLOR: Yes, exactly. Unfortunately—and a very good point there that I was just hearing from Ms Shing—just pushing a particular political narrative will not actually help people get over COVID. That does not actually help when people are unwell, are at risk of dying. Unfortunately it is not that simple. If only it were that easy to run a political line and hope that that would cure and end the pandemic. Unfortunately it will not, and what we are having to transact here is the reality of the situation that we face: that we are in a pandemic. It is extremely unpalatable. It forces us to have to make very, very difficult decisions, but correct decisions have been made in order to keep the Victorian community safe and in order to be able to get everyone back to COVID normal. Can I say ‘COVID normal’ in the world that we live in today? Obviously the pandemic is continuing. It has not ended. We can see there are cases in New South Wales; there are cases around the globe still. Unfortunately, as much as we want it to end, willing and wanting it to end is not enough. Action BILLS 2472 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 has to be taken. Appropriate health measures have to be taken in order to acquit it as best we can at every stage. Daily—daily—monitoring of this pandemic is required in order to acquit it as best we can when the world is faced with this horrible, horrible disease. At the end of the day it is horrible; it is ghastly. And the way that it is—for want of a better word, and now I might stray into territory that I should not because I am not a medical health professional—‘mutating’ is probably not the right word. I think evolving and changing are probably safer words, and I will not tap into that zone. I fear—I am afraid with this bill—that really it is all about playing politics. It is not about enhancing public safety, about conquering the virus. I am not sure that anyone would get cured or that anything would be resolved by passing this bill. I am sorry—I am not sorry actually. I do not apologise that we are opposing this bill, but with good reason, because as I have already probably almost laboriously transacted today, all the various mechanisms that our government is continuing to use, including documentation tabled to the Parliament, are to make sure that the community and those opposite are well apprised of the specific reasoning and rationale and the present that underpins the very critical decision-making through COVID-19. Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (15:39): I welcome the opportunity to follow Ms Crozier, who has delivered an excellent second-reading speech on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021. Ms Taylor filibustered there for a good 25 minutes or so, nearly half an hour, wasted nearly a third of the time that Parliament has to consider this during this allotted time, wasted time filibustering and added very little. She talked a lot about what the government is supposedly doing, but at the end of the day there were some telling things in what she said. She said that Mr Sutton in the monthly update to Parliament provides an overview of his advice to government. Well, why don’t we receive the advice he provides to government—not an overview, not a dot-point summary, not a document that changes the month and changes a few other points and regurgitates what was submitted last month, but the actual daily briefings, the actual advice, the analysis to justify the proportionality, as is required under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008? That analysis is never produced. That analysis is never shown. Yet we have these perplexing restrictions, and I have raised this many times before: the fact that Geelong during the second lockdown had significant numbers of COVID, the Mornington Peninsula had nothing, but the Mornington Peninsula was locked down. Yet when I requested advice about that, there was none provided. Where is the analysis, the nuanced advice, because surely it must exist. Surely the government would not lock down the whole state without having access to nuanced advice—but perhaps they do not, because what came out in the curfew litigation that took place last year in the Supreme Court was that the Department of Health and Human Services legal team believed that the curfew was at risk of being non-compliant with the charter. As Mr Limbrick has raised in this place before and raised earlier, where are the charter assessments? We do not see them. Where are the charter assessments? The context of this is very important, because under a state of emergency, under the government’s legislation, under the extensions in which we live, the usual checks and balances have been bypassed. Usually the Parliament has a role in trying to check the executive, but in effect we have given enormous power to just two or three people that make decisions that impact every one of us. What Ms Crozier is seeking to do in her bill is to not second- guess that advice, not discredit medical professionals—after all, Ms Crozier is a medical professional and Mr Davis is a medical professional. Why would she seek to discredit others who are trained health professionals? No, what Ms Crozier’s legislation seeks to do, at a time when the executive has more power than ever before sitting in the hands of just a handful of people making decisions that have ruined businesses, that have caused huge mental health consequences, is show us why. Show us the justification why, the analysis that is required pursuant to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, the balancing act that must be undertaken to weigh the competing priorities to come at those conclusions. Despite Ms Taylor’s filibustering and very, very long speech, that simple question was not answered, and for those reasons I strongly support Ms Crozier’s bill. BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2473

Mr LIMBRICK (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:44): Back in 2016 Premier Andrews issued a press release which invited the media to quote him as follows, and I quote:

Melbourne is a great place to live, visit or invest—the data proves it. We’re the fastest growing city in Australia, welcoming 70 000 people who’ve voted with their feet and chosen to call Melbourne home in the past year alone. Let us have a look at what the data says now. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, since March last year more than 30 000 Victorians have chosen to leave the state. This is reportedly the largest number since the days of our recession. It is about the same number as people that live in the City of Warrnambool. And I will bet that most of us know someone who has left or is in the process of leaving. The people I know who are leaving are simply tired of no longer being in control of their lives. They are tired of a government that they feel will not listen to them. They know that bureaucrats have taken over control of the state. They do not believe circuit-breaker lockdowns will end when they are told they will end, and they do not want to live in limbo. And they know nothing about the underlying reasons for the public health advice. And I would just like to take up a couple of points. The state-of-emergency extension report that Ms Taylor spoke about has 104 dot points, which is a summary, but when we talk about things like the science underlying these things, there are no references in there to scientific journals. On masks, for example, there are a couple of paragraphs that vaguely refer to the effectiveness of masks. There are no references. People do not know if our human rights are being protected, and how could they? The human rights charter assessments are also secret, as we have heard in this Parliament when the government has claimed executive privilege on those exact documents and claimed that it is not in the public interest to release them. Everyone is asked to trust the experts, but how can they? How can they trust the experts when they see so many examples that do not make any sense? They must wear masks outside when being outside seems like the safest place to be. Why are people allowed to crowd onto public transport but they cannot go to a restaurant? Why are police allowed to use a kettling tactic which forces crowds of protesters into small groups for hours on end and then fine them for gathering in groups? Why are 75 people allowed at a funeral but 20 at a wedding? We were told recently that the rationale is that more people hug at funerals than weddings, but it remains unclear what branch of the health department has been collecting data on hugs, and it would be humorous if it was not tragic, because people being unable to grieve is not a laughing matter. This is just one of so many impacts that have gone unmeasured. On the one occasion when the Ombudsman investigated human rights in the public housing lockdown, she concluded there were breaches of those rights, and yet we are still expected to trust the experts. In recent weeks we have seen protests by businesses, by dancers and by mums and dads who are no longer willing to stay silent. They want control back in their lives. They want to know that they can buy food for their restaurant during the week and be confident they will serve it to customers on the weekend. They want to know if they can make a living here. They want to know if their kids can go to school next week. They want their daughters to finish their ballet exams, and they want to watch their kids play football. And if they cannot do those things, they want to see the evidence. During this pandemic there have been protesters, and to my mind they have been heroes. Despite being vilified as conspiracy theorists and essentially abandoned by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission they have shown real courage to stand up for human rights. They represent the views of countless Victorians who have suffered in silence but cannot afford to risk a fine or a conviction. Others who want to protect the future for their children and regain control of their lives are simply choosing to leave. People would not leave if they were confident that the government had a plan, if they were confident that the decision-making was based on data and there was some kind of scientific method being used. They also might stay if they knew that there was an end point. BILLS 2474 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

I believe that we can return certainty to the people by setting a deadline. I would like to call this Freedom Day, and on this day—which I suggest should be the first Saturday of summer, 4 December this year—the government could say that there will be no more lockdowns, no more fines, no more daily press conferences. We go back to normal, and I am not talking COVID normal but normal normal. People would be encouraged to vaccinate by this time—or not, according to their choosing— but after this day businesses could open up with confidence, university students could return and people could travel, plan events and otherwise get on with their lives. Any further cases of COVID could be managed in individual places without inconveniencing millions, just like all other diseases. Of course the Liberal Democrats will support this bill to provide more insight into the workings of public health directions. Transparency would be a first step towards returning confidence and certainty to the people of Victoria, but it would be even better to have a final step. Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (15:50): I heard Mr Finn’s exclamation of dismay when I got to my feet. I am sorry to disappoint you, Mr Finn. Perhaps you might like to put your mask on properly and go and have a cup of tea. This is a subject that we have traversed many times in this chamber, and in getting to my feet this afternoon to talk about the bill it is going to be necessary for me to reprosecute a number of the positions that have already been put by government in the at least 120 press conferences in a row undertaken by the Premier of the state and the dozens of additional press conferences undertaken by the Minister for Health, the chief health officer, the chief commander and indeed various other ministers in relation to the recovery and response process. What I want to do though is begin with some numbers, and the numbers are grim; in fact they are awful. Five days ago, globally we passed 4 million deaths from COVID—4 million. What we have seen is that around the world this virus and its variants have cut a swathe through countries everywhere. What we have seen is that public health advice has been necessary to inform the decisions of governments of every persuasion on the way in which movement has been restricted and everyday practices such as work, gatherings, participation in leisure activities and the general retail and other consumption that we take for granted have been severely curtailed. I think of the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson has come under increasing fire for the way in which that government has taken action against skyrocketing COVID numbers. And I think to one particular issue, being the use of gyms. This is an area which those opposite are very, very quick to seize upon as not having a proper foundation for recovery or for reopening. What we know, however, is that there is very clear research indicating that in certain environments, including in indoor gyms, the risk of transmission is much, much higher. And it is much higher because of the movement of microaerosols, because of exertion, because of— Mr Limbrick interjected. Ms SHING: I will take that up, Mr Limbrick, because it is in fact in research which has been relied upon by governments around the world in restricting activities such as indoor gyms and exercise. What we know is that activities which increase exertion, which increase contact and which take place in warm and humid environments increase likelihood of the movement of these microaerosols, of surface transmission and therefore of transmission between people. What we also know is that the delta variant, the kappa variant—what were earlier known as the UK variant and the South African variant, and indeed we have a Japanese variant—have continued to confound epidemiologists in relation to the way in which this virus continues to mutate, continues to vary and continues to evade our best efforts to contain it. What we do know is that around the country there have been breaches in hotel quarantine in every other jurisdiction except for Howard Springs in the Northern Territory. What we do know is that despite our efforts to vaccinate as many people as we possibly can here in the state and despite offers, for example, from Pfizer to provide as many doses as we needed—enough, say, with 40 million, to BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2475 vaccinate the population fully—our governments have failed to in fact take the necessary action to secure us in the best possible way. And the best possible way to secure us from transmission and from the impact of this virus, which as I said had five days ago occasioned 4 million deaths globally, is through effective quarantine processes, through vaccination and through ongoing monitoring of the way in which single cases become clusters, become outbreaks, become epidemics, become pandemics. What we see in this bill is, however, something entirely different to making responsible decisions about public safety. What we see in this bill is in fact something which speaks to the political narrative which those opposite want to advance, which in fact seeks to invoke or infuse a capacity or a right of veto and that seeks to be able to empower this house—this Parliament—with the capacity to override expert views and opinions. It puts us in a position where Mr Finn, for example, might be able to say, ‘You know what? I actually think that this health advice is not legitimate, it lacks the necessary gravitas; therefore we’re going to veto it’, talk to his mates around the chamber, get the necessary numbers and then override the expert advice of Professor Allen Cheng, the expert advice of Emma Cassar, the expert advice of Professor Brett Sutton—and could do it for any reason whatsoever. Where is the rigour and where is the scrutiny and where is the transparency in the rationale that might underpin efforts undertaken in this Parliament, where the numbers mean something entirely different to case numbers, where the numbers mean counting votes in order to extract outcomes, which if you are in opposition are about confounding legislative process and are about nothing more, at least in the case of this opposition, than standing in opposition to the work of this government? If we put the shoe on the other foot and we think about what constitutes a viable alternative government, it is not found on the opposite benches. It is not to be found in bills such as this one, which are here for our debate and consideration today. This bill is an effort and an attempt to create fodder for further opposition; it is nothing more than that. Those opposite can stand up and talk about transparency and accountability all they want, but when they have had the opportunity to demonstrate exactly these principles they have failed abysmally. In opposition it is easy for them to be ardent and strident and vocal; it is easy for them to circulate views around creating doubt, around undermining public confidence, around in fact running conspiracy theories, rumours, gossip, reading things in certain papers and then extrapolating theories from them which are used for the purposes of advancing a specific narrative in the Parliament. This could not be further from the reality that we face as a state, that Victorians face in tackling this pandemic. We have seen, as a consequence of the efforts of Victorians time and time again in managing lockdowns, that through the maturity of cases and the confinement and isolation of close contacts who also test positive, through the record numbers in testing and through highly refined processes for understanding everything from effective reproduction numbers through to chains of transmission, that where action can be taken to limit certain movements, to limit and curtail certain activities, in fact this is an important part of the jigsaw in not only stabilising numbers, not only seizing the increase in daily numbers, but bringing them right down to zero—and in doing so, we are then in a position to open up again. Look at what we have achieved in this state in comparison to other jurisdictions. It beggars belief that those opposite would seek to engage in cheap political pointscoring activity where in fact they say, ‘If there’s nothing wrong with the expert health advice, then why can’t it be provided?’, and yet we also then hear those opposite standing up and saying that Professor Brett Sutton does not know what he is talking about or provides advice that should not be relied upon. Well, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that you will be prepared to accept the advice if only it is provided and yet say on the other hand that you have already reached a foregone conclusion about one of those experts who have stood up for hundreds of days at a time since this pandemic first took flight in Australia and say in fact that you do not believe a word he has to say. This is a bet-hedging exercise BILLS 2476 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 that is a waste of the Parliament’s time. It is an affront to the work that is being undertaken in absolute good faith. Those opposite would love to find a conspiracy. They would love to find a reason to craft a chink in the armour of this government’s response to the most significant pandemic and public health challenge that we have seen. They would love to do it, because what it would mean for them is a better opportunity to sit in government, and what a disgrace that is, what a sham they are. Sitting suspended 4.00 pm until 4.18 pm. Ms SHING: As I was saying before the break, it beggars belief that those opposite would not take the opportunities for a multipartisan approach to managing a pandemic that has thus far passed them by. When we look to the South Australian jurisdiction we can see that very early on the opposition leader came out very strongly and said that there was cross-party and cross-Parliament support for the idea of a change to the parliamentary sitting schedule, something which we have seen be the subject of several battlegrounds. We have seen that various jurisdictions have had whole-of-Parliament unity in the way in which public health matters have been dealt with, and yet here we see repeatedly that political grandstanding and lowest common denominator efforts to craft sneaky little Facebook narratives is the defining characteristic of tactics and strategy. So where to from here? What I would suggest for those opposite, if they were so inclined to listen, is that rather than seeking the information here set out in this bill, which they have indicated through other statements there is no way they would accept if it did not suit their political purposes, is in fact that they put pressure on the commonwealth to release vaccination data. If we had a bill that was before this Parliament around the way in which vaccine data ought to be made more freely available so that we could then see how we are tracking—by age, by gender, by location, for not just first vaccinations but for second and therefore complete vaccinations, as we try to head towards the 80 per cent needed, according to expert epidemiological research, to stem the numbers of cases in our communities—then in fact we would have something to go on, because we would be able to be united as a Parliament in a way that would be effective to seek this data. We know that health authorities do not release the numbers and the locations and the ages of fully vaccinated Australians, as I said, and we also know that experts consider this to be a significant hindrance to the necessary strategy to focus vaccines to where they are needed most. It is also important to note that at a commonwealth level this debate is continuing in earnest around the federal government needing to provide its outline for how many vaccines states and territories will actually get for the rest of the year. You want to talk about opacity, you want to talk about a lack of accountability, you want to talk about a lack of information and data about the way in which this pandemic is managed, then look no further than the way in which the commonwealth’s hopelessly botched vaccination rollout has occurred around Australia. Look at the way in which there was no proactive effort undertaken at a commonwealth level to secure the number of Pfizer doses which were in fact on offer last year. What we did as a country, to our shame, to our disgrace and to the disappointment of so many risk analysts out there who understand the principle of spreading risk by diversifying options, is that we put all of our eggs into one basket. And that basket has gotten smaller, and that basket has been affected by changes in expert evidence and understanding around clotting risks, such that now we also see vaccine hesitancy creeping in. We also see increasing strain on our GPs. We also see, again, that lack of transparency, that lack of accountability, the complete lack of a strategy at a commonwealth level for one of the key pieces in effective pandemic response that leads to recovery—namely, vaccination. I am looking, for example, to the fact that the federal government’s daily update includes the total number of doses administered by each state and territory and the number completed by commonwealth clinics and GPs, but I am also looking with dismay to the fact that this data does not include how many BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2477 second doses have been administered, besides those which are taking place within the aged care and disability settings, and does not break down vaccinations by age, gender or location. This is appalling. It is not only appalling that this data is not being made available; it is appalling that those opposite would in fact seek to reprosecute an argument about the politicisation of the Victorian government’s response to the pandemic and leave this other issue to wither at the expense of a better pandemic response. Shame on those opposite. Shame on them for repeating the same narrative to undermine public health advice, to undermine a whole-of-state response to this pandemic. I look forward to one day seeing them put their shoulder to the wheel with the commonwealth to even a scintilla of the same extent that they apply here to the Andrews government’s efforts to respond to COVID-19. Mr FINN (Western Metropolitan) (16:23): The bill currently before the house that Ms Crozier has put up, the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021, is to my way of thinking a no-brainer. It seems to me that 85 per cent of the population of this state, according to the latest poll, regard it as a no-brainer as well. It is a very simple thing, and I do not intend to speak for very long on this bill because I think the arguments are very straightforward and are very easily understood. Victorians want to know what is going on within their government. That is all they want to know, and that is why this bill has been brought before the house—because Victorians want it. They want to know why they have been locked down four times already. They want to know why we have been locked down more times than any other state in Australia. They want to know why so many lives have been so lost. They want to know why so many lives have been destroyed. They want to know why so many businesses have been smashed, and a good mate of mine wants to know particularly why he was prevented from holding his father’s hand as he died. I think that is fair enough. I think it is the basic right of every Victoria to know the answer to those questions, and this bill will present the information that we need, that 85 per cent of the population of the state want. We saw last Friday night 7000 people down at alphabet park in Geelong, and they were all squeezed up together. I mean, there was this huge ground that holds, what, 30 000 people or whatever, and it was about $20 million or thousand or something to build, and there they were. They were all squeezed up together on the wing. You have got to say to yourself: where was the medical advice on that? But apparently it had nothing to do with the medical advice, it had everything to do with the need to employ people to look after the crowds. That is what we understand. You see, this is the sort of thing. The contradictions are all over the place. We do not understand what is going on. We can have 50 people in a brothel, but you cannot go and see your mum—unless of course she is working at the brothel, but that is another thing altogether. There are so many contradictions in this whole thing, and we just want to see the medical advice that backs up the actions that are taken by government. And I do not understand why the government would not want the public to see that medical advice. I do not understand why. I mean, I would have thought that the government would be really keen to explain in full what it wants to do. I would have thought the government would want to bring the Victorian community with it—not stand on high and preach from the mountain top but actually bring the Victorian community with it. That is what I thought it would want to do. But we have this extraordinary situation where it will not, and you have got to ask: why can’t Victorians see the information that is their right to see? Why can’t Victorians see that information? Why the cover- up? It is not as if the virus can read—or can it? I do not know. I understand it cannot read. It is not as if by telegraphing your punches the virus is going to do something else. Mr Ondarchie interjected. Mr FINN: It is just ridiculous, Mr Ondarchie. What the government is saying, what the Premier is saying and what the Acting Premier is saying is, ‘Trust me. I’m a politician’. That is what the Premier and the Acting Premier are saying to the people of Victoria. Well, guess what, I have got news for the members of the government or indeed members of the opposition: the public do not trust politicians, BILLS 2478 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 and they certainly do not trust this government. What this government needs to do is to come clean, to open up with the people of Victoria and just tell us what we need to know, and everybody will be happy. And why the hell wouldn’t you? If you have got nothing to hide, open it up and share it with people. Sharing information is a vital part of this war that we are involved in, so why not? Why wouldn’t you do that? I very strongly support this bill. I commend Ms Crozier for bringing this before the house, and on behalf of the overwhelming majority of Victorians I sincerely hope this legislation is law and very, very soon. Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:29): I rise to speak in support of the Emergency Powers Safeguards Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. In rising to speak, first I had best say that for 30 years I have— The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Sorry, Dr Cumming, I am just wondering if you have got the correct bill. Dr CUMMING: Can I just check with the clerks for a minute? The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Certainly. You are not the only one who has done this. Dr CUMMING: Thank you, Acting President. My apologies. I am rising to speak in support of the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021. My apologies for getting the title wrong, but obviously this piece of legislation is not dissimilar to what we have spoken about in this place before. I want to say from the onset that, yes, I am a doctor of Chinese medicine, and I have been washing my hands aseptically for 30 years. I have also been trained in the army reserves as a preventative medicine technician. I was trained in pandemics, trained in chemical warfare and also trained to be able to look after our community in a time of crisis. I have found it really difficult to understand why this government has not used our defence force in our times of need over the last 18 months to the utmost extent, knowing that they are so qualified and trained for any emergency, especially with this state being in a state of emergency since the start of last year. Hundreds of people contacted me last year stating that they saw the extension of the state of emergency as a loss of their democratic rights. They told me that if Parliament sits regularly, we do not have to have an extension, that we have a Parliament for a reason and unless it sits, their voices will be completely silenced as the people they elect to voice their concerns will not be consulted before decisions are being made. We are all members of Parliament, and we are not being consulted. We are being told by the government, and the community is being told, that the government knows best. The community deserves better governance, and this bill goes to giving that back—to letting us do our job of holding the government to account. I have lost count of the number of times that I have mentioned the need for transparency when it comes to provision of health advice. And just listening to the government one second ago criticising the federal government for their lack of transparency, shame on you. Show the Victorian public the same respect and the same transparency. Over the last 12 months we have been repeatedly put into lockdown and we have consistently lived under restrictions. And those restrictions have not made any sense. Let me just run through how inconsistent some of those restrictions have been. Funerals give us the opportunity to honour those we love and show our respect, a chance to say goodbye and to celebrate their life, but funerals were limited to 10 mourners, and in country Victoria to 20 mourners indoors and 50 outdoors. We heard stories of families and lifelong friends not being able to attend. This is heartbreaking and wrong. Yet places of worship were allowed to open for drug and alcohol support groups. Places of worship were required to adhere to the department’s COVID cleaning, density, signage and record- keeping requirements. So why couldn’t you actually attend a funeral on the basis of density? Where was the compassion? Where was the logic in having 10 or 20 attend a funeral in a church that is BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2479

800 square metres large, or a funeral parlour, going on the density and the square metreage, with COVID-safe plans and hand sanitising? Only last week we saw the chief health officer take off to Canberra to attend an awards dinner when there were 25-kilometre travel restrictions in place. He said, ‘You can’t really honour people for their fantastic research without being there in person’. How hypocritical when we could not go to a funeral to honour our loved ones. And this is the same. He could have attended on Zoom, as other health officers did. Shame, shame. Cinemas have suffered extensive restrictions. They put a lot of work into COVID-safe practices, spending thousands on equipment, sanitiser stations and ticketing software to allow distancing. The audience face the screen, they do not move around. They wear masks, and they can social distance. When they reopened they had a limit of 20 people per space, subject to density. Why? Regarding hospitality venues, we saw restaurants and bars reopening with a maximum of 40 people indoors. However, at the same time entertainment venues could reopen with a limit of 20 people per square metre, subject to density. In New South Wales when they had 14 new daily cases they lifted the restriction on venues to 50 persons. Instead of the numbers of patrons, that was determined by the venue’s square metreage. Now that makes sense. Stadiums seating under 40 000 were reopened for cultural and sporting events at 25 per cent capacity in New South Wales. In Victoria we had not had more than 14 new daily cases for over a month, but we were limited to a number of patrons, to 20 to 40. Why didn’t we have the use of square metreage that worked in New South Wales? What makes it more viable? What is the difference? Is this Australia? Gardening, mowing and landscaping is another industry that was unable to operate throughout the lockdowns—ridiculous—even though they had COVID-safe plans in place. Outdoors they were operating wearing masks and without contacting even the home owner or anybody, yet they were prevented from doing so. At the same time gardeners employed by local councils were able to continue to work, as were the gardeners in these grounds the other week. Regarding home cleaners, we are in a pandemic; you would think cleaning is really important. I have watched it a lot in offices and other places. Home cleaners are often the most vulnerable in our community. They rely on that money. The need for home cleaning was never greater than during lockdown. We were working from home, learning from home. We were in our homes for 22 hours a day for months. Cleaners were operating in work premises, including high-risk settings, but why with COVID-safe plans couldn’t we have had cleaners in our homes when we were out exercising or shopping for those 2 hours? Regarding naturopaths, those registered with the Australian Natural Therapists Association were restricted from operating under the stage 2 and 3 restrictions, yet those registered under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, AHPRA, could. Both naturopaths have the exact same qualification, and they train at the same school. Wearing masks: why can’t Victoria go back to voluntary wearing of masks? The government explains when you wear a mask indoors—why can’t you trust the community, educate them? It makes no sense to walk around with a mask outdoors when there is nobody around. Some of my constituents have done extensive research on this subject. Now, one study by a school of medicine concluded that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face masks as a protective measure against COVID. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of face masks for a short period of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in a high-risk situation. Why then has the government made it mandatory for Victorians to wear a mask everywhere? Seriously. Regarding tobacconists, whenever we go into lockdown tobacconists have to shut down as soon as other retail shops, yet liquor stores can remain open. Where is the logic? What is the difference between a liquor store and a tobacconist? The list goes on and on. Tattoo studios, gyms—oh my BILLS 2480 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 goodness, government, I love listening to what you have just said about gyms, how they are high risk. What a load of BS—Brett Sutton. For this reason obviously you are allowing brothels to open. Don’t they sweat? Don’t they sweat in a brothel? They obviously do not. They obviously sanitise themselves all over, and it is okay. But a gym—a gym, gym, gym—they cannot. And this is where you are losing the community—this hypocrisy, this inconsistency. It makes no sense. A member interjected. Dr CUMMING: Yes. Where is the social distancing in a brothel? I like that one. Where is that social distancing? Physical distance—I hate the words ‘social distance’, because you actually are physically distancing. It is not social distancing. We are all of us wanting to be social, and we do it at a physical distance. I am pretty sure brothels are not physically distancing, but gyms are—gyms 100 per cent. Government, I want to explain to you, no matter what you keep saying about the rest of the world, that we are in Australia. We should have consistency between our states, and to actually say that you cannot have restrictions that make sense to the broader community—I struggle. I certainly struggle. All these restrictions were black and white with no shades of grey, and last year I had some full and frank conversations with the previous health minister explaining how my community had been hurting, but I was also full and frank about how I had been hurting. The last time I met with the previous minister I mentioned my nephew, and the very next day I had the misfortune of losing my nephew and one of my best friends. For myself I realised then that these black-and-white restrictions do not take into consideration the community’s expectations—the difference between my nephew passing away in regional Victoria and Melbourne. And the greater community is the same. And this is why my community has lost faith in the government. I am pretty sure that is what the polls say, because a lot of these restrictions just do not make sense. And they are watching other states, and they are watching. This government needs to listen to the community and to be compassionate, be flexible, be nimble. They have made many errors over the last 12 months. We need to know how and why decisions are being made. A survey published in yesterday’s Herald Sun showed that 22.2 per cent of those responding believe that the state government should release all health advice relating to lockdowns, all medical advice on restrictions and why those restrictions are there; 62.4 per cent strongly support the release of health advice; and a total of 84.6 per cent of the community think that the health advice should be released. We need clear communication and for the community to know when restrictions can be lifted. And the current restrictions that we have today, that should be just the norm, absolutely the norm when we are hitting stage 1 of a problem. We need hope. This bill goes exactly to that. It brings democracy back into play. It allows us to see why restrictions are being made. It brings back transparency. It brings back confidence. It would go a long way to preventing the inconsistencies that we have all been putting up with and that my community has had enough of—up to here. And importantly, it also puts safeguards in place to make sure that the powers are not being abused and that decisions are made on health advice, on medical advice, and it is transparent, and we understand that. It will not be made into a political football; that is just nonsense. We all know that the current Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 is there, and it has been there for many years, and part of that actually stipulates that everything goes to the minister. Make some proper decisions, Minister, on behalf of the whole community. Mr ERDOGAN (Southern Metropolitan) (16:47): I rise to speak on the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Greater Transparency and Accountability) Bill 2021. I want to thank previous speakers for their contributions to the debate, and I want to thank Dr Cumming as well for outlining some of the challenges faced by the community through this global pandemic. I for one accept that certain sectors of society were disproportionately affected by the global pandemic. In my work as committee chair, together with Mr Finn, Mr Meddick, Mr Barton, Mr Tarlamis, Mr Gepp, Mrs McArthur and Mr Davis, we have seen the disproportionate effect on the events sector, for BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2481 example, and many other sectors of our economy have been affected. And my heart really does go out to them, because they are responsible actors in listening to the health advice. They have made personal sacrifices. I like to think all Victorians have made a sacrifice and continue to make sacrifices because we understand the potential impacts if we do not take the health advice. Ms Shing earlier touched on the global impact of this pandemic. She talked about the millions of lives lost. I am proud to state that in our nation and in our state there have not been any lives lost this year through community transmission of COVID-19, because one life lost is one too many as far as I am concerned. Mr Finn reflected on the fact that community trust of politicians has waned and the public does not trust politicians, and one of my biggest concerns with this bill is that it would politicise an independent health approach that exists currently. It would further politicise it and give politicians avenues to interpret the health advice instead of just taking it objectively as it has been provided. People talk about transparent and open government quite frequently, but I think the Premier and the chief health officer need to be commended for fronting up to the public last year every single day. I think it was an enormous effort at a difficult and challenging time, a time when all Victorians were upset for a number of reasons. But I think people need to understand that politicising the process will not assist. It will not help anybody. At the beginning of this pandemic last year I recall that quite frequently there were members of the opposition who said we were too slow to close down, and then when we were opening back up we were too slow to open up. Then the restrictions were either too strict or they were too relaxed. Which one was it? It got confusing. That kind of misleading of the public is just unacceptable. In these instances it is best that we go with the health advice, with the experts in the field. I feel as though they have been quite open in providing updates to members of Parliament and to members of the public. A lot of the health guidance notes are published on the website. When looking at this bill I wanted to see the guidance provided in the last update, which is quite accessible for all of us to read. On 10 June, at 377 pages long, a report was tabled by the chief health officer. The advice sets out in detail considerations made by the chief health officer. It states the current situation of the pandemic, the current statistics on the outbreak numbers, the relevant legislation that informs the advice and also the process that the chief health officer takes and the rationale—all explained. It also states that the chief health officer will take into consideration, and I quote:

… the current epidemiological evidence for coronavirus transmission and management in other jurisdictions, including: (a) the numbers of people potentially impacted and the seriousness of the threat; (b) the nature, scale, and effects of the harm, illness or injury that may develop; (c) the availability and effectiveness of public health measures to eliminate or reduce the risk of coronavirus; (d) The proportionate response to address the serious public health risk. It goes on to say that the evidence the chief health officer will use to develop the advice is:

(a) case data and analysis; (b) location and outbreak data and analysis; (c) results from available modelling; (d) emerging evidence from medical literature; (e) lessons from transmission patterns and outbreaks; and (f) public health interventions in response to these in Victoria, Australia and internationally. So there is a set of objective criteria, quite reasonable criteria, that his advice is based on. Obviously getting to specifically every single detail in a fast-moving, developing situation of communicable disease is not always possible, but I think to date the government has been quite transparent. I know in my relatively short time in this place I have noticed that in terms of transparency and accountability there a number of methods used: question time, questions on notice, questioning of ministers and BILLS 2482 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 departmental representatives and obviously parliamentary committees. Most recently we saw the relevant officials and health minister appear before the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. This approach is quite popular, and it is a quite accepted convention. Documents are regularly sought in this chamber—in the upper house, in the Legislative Council. Obviously a big hoo-ha is usually made when the documents are requested. Usually the government hands over the documents as requested, but then you never hear about them again. So it seems to be a lot of publicity, a lot of political stunts to create an element of fear in the community unfortunately, and that has led to, I believe, a level of hesitancy with the advice. But I think the advice has served Australia well and it has served Victoria well, and that is why we are seeing the success in terms of the level of transmission in our nation being one of the lowest in the world. I think that is a credit to the health professionals, to the experts and to the researchers. The Doherty Institute releases quite a number of pieces of information about the genomic sequencing of the virus, and we have heard about the different variants that have developed. The different variants have different, I guess, levels of danger to the community. But I am quite proud that, as a government, through this approach we have been informing the Victorian community all along where possible. I want to make a point that confidence in our health experts is vital. It is vital because I think there is a path out of the global pandemic. It is when we can get as many people in the world vaccinated as possible. A concern that I have is the gap between wealthy and poor nations in terms of vaccination rates and access to vaccines and medical support. I think as a good global citizen, as a responsible global citizen, we as Australians and Victorians need to play our role, but it does start at home. That is why it has been disappointing that the vaccine rollout, as of today—I checked—had less than 3 per cent fully vaccinated due to supply constraints with the vaccine. Hopefully the federal government has secured the vaccines needed and hopefully the uptake of those vaccines will increase as the supply increases. I think the majority of Victorians are with us. I do not believe the naysayers, who say that the vaccines do not work or somehow there is some conspiracy going on. On this side of the Council, that is just nonsense. And I think the public will take up the vaccine in droves once the supply is available. Mr Leane: If only it was available. Mr ERDOGAN: Well, that is right. That is what I am stating. Mr Leane: It could have been done by July. Mr ERDOGAN: That is right. So the rollout delay is a big issue with, I guess, reducing the public’s confidence in the health response. But to be clear, the chief health officer does provide the directions on the website. In addition there are monthly reports provided, and I outlined the last report. And also it is important that, in the end, there is a tradition in this place that there is an element of cabinet in confidence. And that is needed to have robust debate when decisions are made; that is why this cabinet in confidence exists. But like I said, when requests have been made from this chamber this government has been pretty forthright in providing those documents. No decision is taken lightly, and like I stated from the outset, there have been the disproportionately affected and there have been challenges for certain sections of the community, and I understand their frustrations. Some people have been more greatly affected than others. It is a sacrifice that many people have made for the greater good, and the greater good right now is that there have been no community transmission led deaths in this state this year. That is the result of the sacrifice of all Victorians, so I want to commend the community for their work. I want to commend them, and I think that is a tick of approval on the health advice. People are listening. They believe the chief health officer. They know he is expert in the field. I am not someone who is going to second-guess the expert advice of specialists in the field. Mr Ondarchie: Somewhere close to the bill maybe? BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2483

Mr ERDOGAN: No, no. I think that is what the bill is. I am trying to say that the bill is talking about— Mr Ondarchie interjected. Mr ERDOGAN: Mr Ondarchie, like I said, the bill is talking about accountability and transparency, but what it adds is a layer of politicisation to the process. Mr Finn himself was saying that people have lost confidence in politicians. I am saying that what this bill is suggesting is that we have an extra layer of politicisation of the process. I think we have had enough of it through the media. We have had enough of it from the opposition. Either the restrictions are too strict or we are going too light, you know, we did not lock down hard enough—which one is it? So I think there is transparency and consultation, like I said, and part of this bill is about consultation and getting the community involved. I know for a fact that the relevant ministers have consulted stakeholders throughout the process, whether it be the— Members interjecting. Mr ERDOGAN: You know some of the briefings are cabinet in confidence. You understand the traditions, Mr Davis—you have been in this place for a long time—of the Westminster system. It is important that the bureaucrats can give free and fair advice to ministers, and there is cabinet in confidence with some of those documents. Members interjecting. Mr ERDOGAN: I think it is important that we continue on the debate. Look, I understand there are a number of people that want to speak on this bill. The point I was making is the guidelines have been set. You have got the monthly briefings. You have heard from the health officer. You have heard from the Premier, the Acting Premier, the health minister, and they are all doing an amazing job. They are fronting before the community as best as possible. Members interjecting. Ms Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President , I cannot hear the member speak. There is so much noise coming from those opposite. I think the member is entitled to be heard in silence. The ACTING PRESIDENT (Ms Patten): Thank you, Ms Terpstra. It was getting fairly rowdy. Mr ERDOGAN: In terms of the genomic sequencing in relation to this pandemic, the Doherty Institute has done an amazing job in releasing that data so we can see the links, see where the outbreaks are coming from, see what are the best measures, and the health advice can be formulated based on that. Last week the opposition had an opportunity at the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee to ask the health experts questions; instead all they wanted to do was have a go at the minister. They wanted to politicise the process and have a go at the minister. They banged their feet on the tables—it was a complete disrespect of the committee by Mr Newbury—and it was a terrible process to watch and observe. No wonder people are losing respect or confidence in the political process if that is the way you conduct yourselves. I trust the health advice. I think the processes are in place at the moment to inform the community. It is on the website. Feel free to go online if you wish to do so, not to some of those other websites but to the public health advice by the Department of Health—not to QAnon or those other websites, but to DHS, where you get free and fair information. I just noticed there were some remarks about polling. Polling is an interesting one, Dr Cumming. I hope you do not get your polling from Mr Finn’s Facebook page. It depends where you get your information from, but as I said, I have confidence in the health experts in this field and I think the processes are working as they should be at the moment. BILLS 2484 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Mr DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan—Leader of the Opposition) (17:01): I am going to make a short contribution on this important bill to pay tribute to Ms Crozier for bringing the bill to the chamber and to the work that was done on this bill by Mr O’Donohue. These are important contributions. I want to pick up where Mr Erdogan finished just a moment ago. He said he trusts the health advice. Well, that is nice. The problem is none of us have seen the health advice on a broad front. Members interjecting. Mr DAVIS: Let me be quite clear. I am a former health minister. I have actually seen the way the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 works. I have actually used it in difficult circumstances to close down Jindi Cheese, for example; that is an example I have used in this chamber before. But let us be clear here. The Public Health and Wellbeing Act is a very straightforward act. It requires the chief health officer or their nominee to balance information—to balance proportionally information—to look at the human rights impacts, to look at the medical and health aspects and to seek advice, and to do that transparently and accountably. Indeed the regulations that are made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, and I use that word advisedly, they are public health orders that are made under that act and those pieces of regulation ought to be properly scrutinised by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee. They have not been; they should have been. SARC actually ought to have done its work; it has not. Leaving that aside, the argument about the tabling of the state-of-emergency declaration and the list of health orders and the reasons—the reasons are a single paragraph in each case. I have read them carefully, and they are wholly inadequate as an explanation as to why the matters are ordered and promulgated, why the orders are made. They are wholly inadequate. The chief health officer has that advice. We know the chief health officer has that advice. You only need to read the Ombudsman’s report— Members interjecting. Mr DAVIS: I have read the Ombudsman’s report, and you should too. The Ombudsman’s report made it very clear that when the government locked down the towers, with a massive impact on 3000 people, there was a briefing. It was presented to the then deputy chief health officer 15 minutes before the press conference. She was awkward about it. She signed it in the end, but she had to weigh a range of things, and that briefing was provided to her just 15 minutes before— Members interjecting. Mr DAVIS: You go and read the Ombudsman’s report. Go and read it and tell me if what I am saying is wrong. It is actually there in the summary. You can read it very clearly, and that is what occurred in that circumstance. As to the argument that there are not briefings, the government’s own document tabled here—in response to a documents order Ms Symes tabled a document, the decision to impose a curfew—lists in a schedule, as is required, that there are in fact 11 documents which the government pointed to. Five of them are the actual orders themselves—they are attached; the date of them is there—and then there are six other documents that the government has actually said exists. So those on that side of the house who say the public health order briefings do not exist, just go and read it. Go and read it for yourself: ‘Cover Brief—Re-issue of public health directions to limit the spread’, and there is detail there, ‘Executive privilege is claimed’; ‘Attachment C1—Charter assessment—Restricted Activity’, ‘Executive privilege is claimed’; ‘Attachment C2—Charter Assessment Restricted Activities … (No. 4)’, ‘Executive privilege is claimed’; ‘Attachment C3— Charter Assessment—Stay Safe Directions’, ‘Executive privilege is claimed’; number 10, ‘Attachment C4—10 … Charter Assessment Stay at Home (Restricted Areas) (No. 6)’, ‘Executive privilege is claimed’; and number 11, ‘Policy Paper—New Restrictions’. So the Department of Health BILLS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2485 and Human Services (DHHS) on 2 August 2020 produced a policy paper. We know it exists, because Jaclyn Symes has told us it exists, but they have claimed executive privilege over a policy paper. So when Mr Erdogan says, ‘I trust the health advice’, he has not seen the health advice. Nor have we and nor has the Victorian community—and the Victorian community is entitled to see that health advice. They are entitled to it. That is the fact. It is wrong that the government is secretive about it. I FOIed the Department of Premier and Cabinet and asked for the material on which they relied to lock down the state with a curfew. They said, ‘There’s one document, but you can’t see it’. So there is an FOI dispute. If you look at the— A member: There’s one document. Mr DAVIS: Well, that is what they said. They said there is one. You cannot tell me the document does not exist when DPC has said to me in formal correspondence, ‘The document exists, but you can’t see it’. So we say the community is entitled to see these sorts of documents. And then DHHS said, ‘Oh, it’s too voluminous’. They said, ‘It’s too many. There’s too many documents. You can’t see it. It’s too much work for the department to collate them’. But we have got people today saying they do not exist. Really? What a wacky circus we are talking about here. Of course they exist. They are required to exist under the act and they do exist under the act, and the government is keeping them secret because some of them are weak and shoddy. That is the truth of the matter. The government is not prepared to put these things into the public domain. This is a sensible bill. It is a practical step. It actually puts a sensible check around the use of these powers and allows SARC to play a role. So I say Mr O’Donohue’s and Ms Crozier’s bill is a good bill, and I hope that the chamber gets the chance to vote on it. Ms GARRETT (Eastern Victoria) (17:07): I am really delighted to get up and make a contribution today—and I see there are a lot of us in pink on this side of the chamber. We put out a memo, and I am sure we will get that out in the FOIs. And it is lovely to hear from Mr Davis, because I think one of the absolutely searing recollections we all have is the time when Mr Davis was the health minister, as he referred to, when he would just come out, just unannounced, with truckloads of documents to share with the community! I mean, you would remember that, Mr Leane. You could not move for all the documents that were released under Mr Davis! In between building absolutely nothing he released an enormous amount of documents every single day—the bastion of transparency! I know when I first came into this place Mr Leane said, ‘Watch out for that Mr Davis. He loves releasing a document. It makes him very happy’—and he has not stopped! Anyway, here we are; he is working the floor. We just need our little things on. And so I am delighted that he is now giving us all a big lecture about releasing. I must say I think, with respect, that there may be a few ‘I stand with Dan’ people and there may be a few conspiracy people in other veins who want more press conferences, but the rest of Victoria I think would probably say that we are getting so much information every day from both our elected officials and our public health officials. How long are our press conferences going for? They go for as long as is needed. How long do our parliamentary debates go for? Well, we can all say they seem to go on for a very, very long time. How long is the information that is provided on our website? Again, it is regular and consistent. You cannot move for the amount of discussion that this has had publicly—as it should be. And at this point when we talk about our public health officials—who I must say are being run down quite regularly by those opposite—our public health officials are not born of the cut and thrust of politics but have done an incredible job getting up every day, as they should, to face the people and explain their decisions. Now, I get the opposition could be incandescent with rage if these public health officials were never available, if they were not there with the entire press pack, if they were not there on the radio taking questions from our most experienced journalists. If they were not there providing those updates and putting their material, I could understand being absolutely incandescent with rage. But it is really hard BILLS 2486 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 to find a state where there is more discussion, analysis and questioning—and sometimes really, really fierce, aggressive questioning, as it should be in a democracy. But we are here supposedly being told by those opposite that we are living in a secret state. Well, let me tell you, I do not think there are that many secret states in various parts of the world that bowl up, sometimes twice a day, beginning really early, with all of the information that needs to be put to the Victorian community. And I do get why the opposition would like to reach in and throw out all of the conventions that have existed to keep our democracies strong, including cabinet-in-confidence documents. Every opposition wants to get their hands on cabinet-in-confidence documents. Every journalist wants to get their hands on cabinet-in-confidence documents. It is a time-honoured pass, but both sides of this house have respected over the generations that it is important that there is free and frank discussion at the executive level behind closed doors and that if every issue that was had was in front of the public domain then proper analysis would not take place. So the fact is the opposition were quite frankly abysmal, were appalling, at releasing documents and were the height of secrecy during the time they occupied these benches. I mean, you could not move for the blacked-out documents, Mr Leane. You would recall those. Mr Leane: I think he handed over three. Ms GARRETT: I will take that interjection up from the honourable minister—three documents. Ms Crozier interjected. Ms GARRETT: I understand, Ms Crozier. Again, I do understand. But I will just go through briefly, because I believe certainly the women in pink would like to hear what I have to say. Oh, and I think Ms Patten has got some pink on. Because, you know, these are incredibly serious matters, and there is nobody on this side of the house that does not understand that lives are impacted by these decisions that are made on the advice of the chief health officer. Clearly people’s lives are greatly impacted by these decisions, and these decisions are not and cannot be viewed as being taken lightly. So let us just go through who the senior health team is made up of in Victoria. Dr Cumming: Oh, excellent. Ms GARRETT: I know Dr Cumming has been very interested in my thoughts here, and I am glad that she is. Mr Finn: We just want their advice. Ms GARRETT: And I know, Mr Finn. Well, Mr Finn is in pink as well, so he might want to hear what I have to say along with us on this side of the chamber. We have got expert medical professionals, some of the leading public health groups. Dr Kieu would know this very well in his world—the infectious diseases experts. We know that Melbourne is at the epicentre of medical research and medical advancements throughout our region, not just in this country, and again I commend Minister Pulford and the Acting Premier, who made those outstanding announcements regarding the production of the vaccine. And while we are at the vaccine, where are we at? I believe it was you, Ms Terpstra, who said less than 3 per cent are fully vaccinated. So where is that at? You know, all this agitation in this chamber should be directed straight up the Hume Highway. I mean, where are we at in New York? It is 70 per cent. We have got in the UK 70 per cent. We are not even at 3 per cent because apparently, members of this house, this is not a race. ‘Doing this vaccine is not a race,’ said the Prime Minister. Wow. Well, I would hate to see what this is. A picnic, is it? Will I have a little rest? Are we the tortoise and the hare? I do not know. I mean, we are the tortoise and it looks like the other countries are the hare, and maybe this is one time that that fable does not reach its conclusion, because I am not sure how we are going to get to that 70 per cent quickly with this mob in charge. Your mates are in charge upstairs— well, hasn’t that gone well? Less than 3 per cent and you are lecturing us about documents. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2487

Dr Kieu: Two more years. Ms GARRETT: Two more years—Dr Kieu would know a lot better than perhaps I would know, but why would I give that up? Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders Statements on reports, papers and petitions DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 14th Report to Parliament on the State of Emergency Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (17:15): I rise to make a statement on the 14th report on the state of emergency, and I really have to question the credibility of this report by the chief health officer, Professor Brett Sutton. We have heard a lot of experts come out against the advice that has been given, so I would like to know who is advising Professor Sutton. Be transparent. Who are the experts? Give us their names. We keep hearing the terms ‘medical advice’ and ‘health advice’ being used interchangeably. They are not the same. Medical advice is the provision of a formal professional opinion regarding what a specific individual should or should not do to restore or preserve health. Typically medical advice involves giving a diagnosis and/or prescribing a treatment for a medical condition. Health advice is about improving health and preventing disease. As our chief health officer I would expect him to know the difference. The author of this report is the same person who has been giving us conflicting restrictions all the way through COVID. For naturopaths, those registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency could practise but those registered with the Australian Natural Therapists Association were restricted from operating under stage 2 and 3 restrictions. Both naturopaths have the same qualifications and they train at the same school. Gardeners were allowed in public parks but not in our front yards. There were restrictions on the number of people at events and in venues, numbers that appear to be pulled out of the air rather than being based on solid reasoning or based on density or physical distancing like in other states in Australia. Cleaners were allowed to work in office buildings and high-risk settings, but we couldn’t have cleaners in our homes—our homes that we were stuck in, working, teaching our children, for 22 hours a day. Why couldn’t we have cleaners in for the 2 hours a day that we were allowed out? Where is the evidence that COVID is transmitted by surface contact? My research shows that there is little to support the idea that COVID passes from one person to another through contaminated surfaces. In fact some medical experts state that it is theoretically possible but highly unlikely. And let us not forget one of the most horrific restrictions, the one that limited numbers of attendees at funerals. A Victorian family was denied a funeral exemption for their eight-year-old son, who drowned at a school camp before our fourth lockdown. The mother requested his funeral be able to go ahead with more than 10 attendees. She told VicHealth that the family was happy to hold the funeral outdoors with all attendees wearing face masks. Her request was denied. The chief health officer, Professor Brett Sutton, said:

I think these are the most difficult decisions for the exemptions teams to make and it’ll be weighing extremely heavily on them. But our thoughts are with the family at such extraordinarily difficult times. Yet last week the chief health officer jetted off to Canberra while we all stayed at home and within our 25-kilometre limits. He went to attend an awards night and a meeting, all of which could have been done online. To justify his attendance he said:

… you can’t really honour people for their fantastic research without being there in person. Yet Professor Sutton expected the boy’s family to honour him without attending his funeral. It is an insult to all of us who have lost loved ones during the last year and could not attend their funerals. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2488 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

If we are to believe this report, if it is to have any credibility, the chief health officer should tell us the names of the experts who are advising him and advice should be provided to this Parliament. LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE Inquiry into the Closure of I Cook Foods Pty Ltd Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:20): I want to speak to the inquiry into the closure of I Cook Foods and the report that was handed down to Parliament last August, which has some incredibly interesting information in it. As we now know, information has come to light in the last few days in the public domain of new evidence that the inquiry that I sat on did not hear about. In fact we had public officials—some of the public officials that we have been talking about in the previous debate—talk about transparency and accountability and talk about why it is important to understand the health advice and the law in terms of what you are doing and the decisions you are making impacting people’s lives, whether it is the COVID pandemic or shutting down a business. The acting chief health officer at the time, Dr Brett Sutton, was following so-called legislation, he said, and shut this family business down, destroying it and 41 jobs. The very tragic circumstances around that scenario need to be reprosecuted and requestioned by this Parliament. I have gone through this report again, and it has raised more questions in my mind about what we were not able to get at the time. What is in the public domain—a fourth police investigation into this issue— demonstrates the serious nature of what we are talking about. At the very core of what we are talking about is good governance, good government and a free and open society. This company was destroyed and owed millions, but worse than that, the criminal charges that were thrown out of court could have seen somebody go to jail and pay millions of dollars in fines. This is a very serious issue around something that sounds so small—the closure of a business over a health issue. But was the law followed properly? Were the documents that were known to the Department of Health looked at thoroughly and acted upon in accordance with the law? That is what I want to understand. And I think they are great question marks over a whole range of issues. This inquiry was a very good inquiry, given the time we undertook it in. We did not have long to undertake the inquiry. It was very efficient and thorough, but we were presented with evidence that is now very questionable. In fact I am wondering how much contempt of Parliament has actually gone on. Have people actually said something under oath that perhaps did not occur? There are lots of questions around what was said in that inquiry and why it was so important. I am very, very pleased that this Parliament, this chamber, actually supported my motion to get this inquiry up in the first place, and I want to say thank you to every one of those MPs that supported that motion because of the importance of what we are talking about—good government and good governance— Ms Lovell: Justice. Ms CROZIER: Justice, truth and transparency. It is critical for good government. It is critical for good governance. It is critical for our democracy. This story has just grown and grown and grown because of this family who believe they were innocent and have gone to great lengths to get information through freedom of information and through that process have been able to obtain information that we were not privy to. In fact it was not presented to us. We have not had a chance to move the motion that I wanted to today, but I am hoping the committee will see the sense in why we need to reopen this inquiry and look at these very, very important issues, because we, as members of Parliament, need to uphold what is so critical in this state—those issues around truth, transparency, integrity and honesty—because somebody’s life has been destroyed, livelihoods have been destroyed, and it goes to the core of how government operates. I think it is critical that this inquiry that was concluded in August be reopened. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2489

DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET Report 2019–20 Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (17:25): I would like to speak on the Department of Premier and Cabinet Annual Report 2019–20, and the reason I would like to speak on that report is that that is where the veterans department used to reside. I would like to talk about some of the work that has been done by some very good groups in our community in supporting in particular veterans’ and their families’ wellness. As I have said in this chamber before, we respect and expect that the commonwealth takes the primary role in veterans’ and their family members’ welfare, and they have got the welfare system for it. But the conversation I have had with the Minister for Mental Health and Acting Premier, James Merlino, is about whether we can do some good work in assisting some of the groups that are assisting veterans and their families in the wellness area and piggyback on the outcomes and recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. One of the groups that I recently met that is doing some great work just in wellness for veterans is a group called Guitars for Vets Australia. I caught up with the Victorian chapter’s CEO, David Cox, only recently to have a conversation with him about how G4VA actually operates. It is a simple concept, but it has worked really well. Basically Guitars for Vets gets people donating guitars, and then they make it possible for veterans to have 10 lessons from professional guitar teachers to learn the guitar and get themselves on the way to take up the hobby of playing the guitar if they choose to. They have had hundreds of guitars donated and they have had hundreds of lessons, and they have not let any of the COVID concerns slow them down. I just want to give a bit of a shout-out to David and the work he does. He has got some activities coming soon. I think they are going to release a CD in July. The CD is called Where Words Fail, and it is songs gifted by Australian artists. Some of them are ex-serving, including Victorian singers and songwriters Normie Rowe, Marty Rhone, Paul Norton, Peter Cupples, Noel Watson and many others, and the objective is to obviously sell as many CDs as they can to support this great cause. It is making a difference, so I really want to congratulate the Guitars for Vets Victorian chapter. I also want to pay tribute today to the War Widows Guild. On Sunday I was at an event and I spoke to Wendy Charlton, who is the president of the Victorian chapter of the War Widows Guild Australia. They are actually winding up their operations. They have been operating since after World War II, when Mrs Jessie Mary Vasey, who was the widow of General George Alan Vasey from World War II, started a bit of a movement. She believed that war widows after World War II were not looked after well enough. She called an early meeting in Melbourne. Three hundred people who did not really know who she was, 300 widows, turned up to that particular event, and she started a movement which has done some absolutely magnificent work in supporting not only war widows but other organisations that do good work for veterans and their families. Unfortunately in February this year at their annual general meeting the War Widows Guild of Australia (Victoria) passed a resolution to wind up the organisation, and they are moving some assets into different patriotic funds at the moment. But I just want to really acknowledge Wendy Charlton and everyone that has been involved with her to carry on Mrs Vasey’s great work in assisting war widows, and their legacy will continue long past when they wind up. Great work by Wendy Charlton, great work by the guild in Victoria, and they cannot be congratulated enough for the work they have done since the end of World War II. SURF COAST PLANNING Petition Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:30): Just over 14 years ago the residents of Torquay and Jan Juc rallied against development of the Spring Creek Valley. This fight united the community, who were outraged that development of the last vestige of green space between Jan Juc and Bellbrae, home STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2490 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 to threatened and endangered species of both flora and fauna, should even be thought of as a future house-and-land-package site to rival what we now see in Armstrong Creek or the outskirts of Melbourne. It was just the beginning, and the fight has continued all that time. It has seen changes of state government and local council and the comings and goings of various politicians of all persuasions, and still the fight goes on. The community loves that area and has had enough and rightly asks: how much longer; how much more do we have to fight? At the last state election the Premier himself, the Honourable Daniel Andrews, came, stood on country and made the bold announcement that our fight was over, that we had won and his government would protect it. ‘There will be no development west of Duffields Road’, I believe was the declaration. Yesterday I laid on the table in this place the latest salvo in our fight: a petition that adds weight to the over 3000 submissions to the standing committee that has overseen an inquiry into declaring the area a distinctive area and landscape, and we await its recommendation to the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Richard Wynne. We, the community of the Surf Coast, have seen the gradual but irrepressible advance of erosion of the landscape we moved there to enjoy. We have witnessed the growth to the north of estate after estate and the emerging disaster that faces the nearby Karaaf wetlands from run-off from those developments. We welcome every new member of the community, but growth should never come at the expense of the environment. I pay tribute to the members of the Greater Torquay Alliance, to the 3228 Residents Association, to the Surf Coast Energy Group and of course to the community itself. Fourteen years is a long time to hold tight, to stand fast, but this is what we have done. The petition is backed by another that will be tabled in the other place by the member for South Barwon, Darren Cheeseman, and it is our hope that the committee listens to all that is presented to them on behalf of our community and that the minister hears the call of our community and finally brings our fight to an end. SOUTH WEST TAFE Report 2020 Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:33): I rise to register my concern about the South West Institute of TAFE annual report 2020, tabled in Parliament on 4 May this year. My problem is less about what is in the report—namely, 120 pages detailing worthy educational work in south-west Victoria—than what is skated over or omitted entirely. In particular I refer to page 36 and the paragraph titled ‘Glenormiston training facility and Hamilton campus’. For those members who may be unaware, the Glenormiston facility referred to is a magnificent, extensive and historic homestead near Terang. The original 1847 property was extended in 1859, but it is the 1908 arts-and-crafts-style additions which make it an asset of statewide significance, as recognised by the Heritage Council of Victoria and the National Trust of Australia. The avenue of 190 English elms is listed. Even individual plantings in the grounds make it to the register, such are their age, rarity and quality. The pasture too, 300 hectares of it, is absolutely prime and known far and wide as some of the most productive land in Australia. Perhaps its crowning glory, however, is not the historic homestead, the glorious grounds or the productive pasture; it is what is inside. The staircase and a number of other internal fittings commissioned by Steuart Black in 1909 are by Australia’s most renowned woodcarver and cabinet- maker, Robert Prenzel. The 36 exquisite and elaborate carved panels represent Australian flora and fauna and were among the first of Prenzel’s major distinctly Australian works. This work, removed to the UK for storage in 1949, was exhibited in the National Gallery of Victoria on its return to Australia in 1994. It is breathtaking. The Prenzel works alone might well be worth more than the house that contains them and perhaps more than the entire estate itself. And yet the sale of Glenormiston from the state to China-based land investor Dean Montgomery merits only a single extremely opaque paragraph in this report. STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2491

At Monday’s PAEC meeting Richard Riordan, the member for Polwarth, skilfully forced the revelation that Glenormiston was transferred from the Department of Education and Training and subsequently immediately sold by South West TAFE for $4.685 million in February. This raises a huge number of questions, only some of which I can address here. I will continue to return to this matter until the minister explains in absolute detail just what has happened. Nearby Chocolyn homestead, on just 120 hectares, sold last month for $47 000 per hectare. Glenormiston has 300 hectares with a lease value of at least $200 000 per annum but also other very lucrative commercial property occupied by sitting tenants. Even without the artwork or this tenancy the most conservative estimate of value would have to be north of $15 million. What is the explanation? We need the immediate release of the valuer-general’s valuation report or serious questions will remain. Furthermore, the Black family passed on this historic homestead and land to the state for use in the interests of Australian farming. Has the restriction been retained or has the Andrews government maximised the proceeds by selling an unencumbered freehold? The minister could not categorically confirm this in her answer to me in question time today. Reference was made to a 10-year lease from the new owner. How much money will Mr Montgomery receive in this period, and just why is settlement of the purchase delayed until 2024? What is happening to the price of Prenzel’s works? All of this must become a matter of public record. Where did this money go—the $2 million that the state has granted to assist in, quote:

… the refurbishment of Glenormiston’s training, accommodation, and … equipment requirements. Has it increased the capital value of the property, now sold for less than $5 million? Will it increase the new owner’s rent value? We need a full breakdown. Finally, the report references the purchase of the Hamilton campus of South West TAFE. What does this mean? Where is the due process? How much was it sold for, and to whom? In one paragraph, without any public announcement, this report reveals Glenormiston and Hamilton TAFE campuses have been sold off. What else is up for grabs? (Time expired) SOUTH WEST TAFE Report 2020 Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:38): It gives me great pleasure to rise and also speak on the South West TAFE annual report. I think it is worth first highlighting a bit of history about South West TAFE. This fantastic outcome in the 2020 annual report is a testament to the Andrews government turning South West TAFE around from what it was like under the previous Liberal- National government. When those opposite were in government they cut $1 billion from Victoria’s TAFEs. They tried to destroy TAFE. They hate public education so much they did everything they could to rip the funding out of the TAFE system. For South West TAFE the Liberal-Nationals cut over $11 million in government-funded contributions over 2013 and 2014 alone. In 2012 alone South West TAFE reported a $7.2 million cut. In 2012 it was 10 per cent of its revenue. This meant significant job losses at South West TAFE. Between 2013 and 2014 alone there were over 100 less staff. These people were sacked as a result of the previous government’s devastating cuts. South West TAFE also experienced the loss of enrolments of 2000 students in 2014, a 40 per cent decline in contact hours. That is because those opposite cut TAFE funding and damaged its reputation. In a 2015 Auditor- General’s report South West TAFE was given a high overall risk assessment, caused by funding cuts because of those opposite. The state of TAFE under the Liberal-Nationals government was disgraceful. They hate anything to do with public education, and they hate TAFE. In regard to Glenormiston, I am really keen to talk about this site. The annual reports highlight the significant investment of the Andrews government, ensuring South West TAFE can expand agricultural training at Glenormiston to introduce horticulture, civil construction, engineering and STATEMENTS ON REPORTS, PAPERS AND PETITIONS 2492 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 electrical technology courses. We promised that we would invest $2 million to upgrade Glenormiston at the last election. Those opposite have no credibility when it comes to Glenormiston, and they have short memories given that they shut down Glenormiston in 2013. The cuts meant training ended at this campus. We reopened the campus, we resumed training and we secured training into the future. The land remains zoned for education purposes to protect the continued delivery of training. Enrolment numbers this year are up, meaning south-west locals are signing up to get agricultural training more than ever to support the fantastic agricultural sector. Now they are just making things up. The sale of Glenormiston followed all the proper processes. It remains in public hands and it remains zoned for education uses. The site was valued by the valuer- general and sold at that price. Again, those opposite want to continue to make things up. We all know that they hate the protection of education in Glenormiston and we do not. We support TAFE at every turn. The 2020 South West TAFE annual report confirms what we already know: that TAFE is better than ever under this government. At South West TAFE we have seen fantastic outcomes. South West TAFE was awarded Victorian and Australian large training provider of the year. This would not have been possible if further funding cuts had been increased by this government. Shona McGuigan was awarded Victoria’s apprentice of the year. They have trained over 5163 students. Progress has been made on a learning and library hub at South West TAFE in Warrnambool. Almost $5 million in additional funding was received to refurbish the F building through the asset maintenance program. This will support VCAL hair, beauty and massage, and plumbing, and automotive apprenticeships and programs. South West TAFE was number one for employer satisfaction in Victoria. Student contact hours have been up since 2016, again showing that we have fixed the reputation of the TAFE, and people are coming back in droves. The Andrews Labor government is so proud of South West TAFE. It will always back them. We will not try to cut them or force them to merge with other TAFEs like those opposite did. COSGROVE SOLAR FARM Petition Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:42): I rise to speak on a petition that I tabled yesterday, a petition signed by 396 residents of Victoria to refuse the development of a 5-megawatt solar farm in Cosgrove. This petition was collected by Monica Sutherland of Cosgrove. Her 465-acre farm is just adjacent to where the proposed solar farm is. As soon as Mrs Sutherland saw the application published in our local paper she emailed Bison Energy, the applicant, and asked for photos and montages of what the solar farm would look like. It took them nine days to respond to her. As we know, people only have 28 days to appeal a decision, so nine of those days were taken up waiting for that, whilst the company itself had 15 months to prepare its application. But its application, even given it took 15 months, was not very thorough. Mrs Sutherland engaged a planning expert to assist her, and the planning expert advised Mrs Sutherland to go through every report that Bison Energy had listed. There were 10 of them. The planning experts said, ‘Highlight the errors and we’ll put them in our objection’. Well, there are 23 pages of the objection to this application, because this company were not very thorough. Whilst there are a lot of errors in the application, I am going to concentrate on just three, given that we have very limited time. The first of those errors is that Bison Energy actually placed a label over the most impacted of the houses in the area. The neighbours of the Sutherlands are Nathan and Brea Gibbs. They are a young couple in their early 30s with a very young family. Their home is just 80 metres from the first solar panels. Placed over their actual house in the application is a sticker that says ‘Proposed solar farm’. It does not show that there is a house there, so anyone looking at this report who is not a local would not realise that people are living there, right next to them. That is at page 22 of Mrs Sutherland’s objection. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE AND MINISTERS STATEMENTS Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2493

Also in Mrs Sutherland’s objection is a reference to the agricultural report that was put together by Bison Energy. They have listed the entire Sutherland farm as being for cropping and grazing. They have totally ignored the fact that there are 16 000 olive trees that are just 50 metres from the proposed inverter. Just three weeks ago the Sutherlands harvested 21 tonnes of olives and produced 5500 litres of oil from those olive trees. So once again they are putting information in here such that a stranger reading this would not be informed thoroughly of what the impact would be on the Sutherlands’ farm. The last of them is actually quite hilarious. It is actually on page 10 of Mrs Sutherland’s objection, but it is on page 9 I think of Bison Energy’s application, and it refers to figure 14. It actually refers to one of the surrounding routes to the solar farm as being Jancourt Road and Camperdown-Cobden Road. It says that it is located just 2 kilometres from the edge of this solar farm that they are applying to build. Well, this road is actually located 390 kilometres away from the Cosgrove solar farm that it is listed in the application as being a part of. This is a flawed application. It should be rejected. I have met with all of the neighbours of the Sutherlands and listened to them all. This is not a good proposal for this region. I call on the minister and his planning advisers to thoroughly go through this objection and to also go out and meet with the Sutherlands and their neighbours on site so they can see for themselves the impact that this would have on a very highly productive agricultural area just outside of Shepparton. So with all of these mistakes in this application, I plead with the minister to decline the approval of planning application 2000974. The PRESIDENT: Just a point of clarification for members: if a member is on their feet and speaking on a report before the time finishes, they are allowed to go the full 5 minutes, for your information. Questions without notice and ministers statements WRITTEN RESPONSES The PRESIDENT (17:47): During question time Ms Tierney was asked a supplementary by Mrs McArthur. A point of order was raised, and I said I would check the Hansard. Having checked the Hansard, Ms Tierney needs to reply to the supplementary. I give her two days. Adjournment Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (17:47): I move:

That the house do now adjourn. SHEPPARTON SPORTS AND EVENTS CENTRE Ms LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (17:48): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Regional Development, and it concerns funding to redevelop the Shepparton Sports Stadium into the Shepparton sports and events centre. The action that I seek from the minister is that she give a commitment to provide funding of $13 million, being the state government’s share of the $42 million first stage of the redevelopment of the Shepparton Sports Stadium to create the Shepparton sports and events centre. The Shepparton Sports City precinct in North Shepparton is the home of first-class facilities for many different sports, including soccer, netball, hockey and athletics. The facilities at sports city are of such a high standard that Shepparton regularly hosts national and even international sporting events, generating substantial economic benefits for our region. The final piece of sporting infrastructure required to complete the sports city precinct is the much-needed redevelopment of the Shepparton Sports Stadium. The stadium opened in 1972 as a two-court facility, with the only major upgrade being an additional two courts being added in 1994. Greater Shepparton City Council has a vision to redevelop the stadium into a multifaceted Shepparton sports and events centre. Subject to funding availability the Shepparton sports and events centre project will be delivered in three stages, with ADJOURNMENT 2494 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021 stage 1 costed at $42 million, to be jointly funded by the state and federal governments and the Greater Shepparton City Council and also with a contribution from the Munarra centre. Stage 1 of the project includes the design and construction of three new multipurpose courts, a 3000-seat retractable grandstand, new wet area amenities, an administration hub and the car park. A full cost-benefit analysis has been completed, which found the project will have a total regional benefit output of $68 million and create 235 jobs in the local community during construction. Additional events attracted because of the completed project would generate an additional 24 000 visitors to Greater Shepparton each year, equating to an annual visitor spend into the local economy of $12.3 million. It would also really benefit our local sporting activities and our kids, giving them first-class facilities to compete in. Last week the final design project tender for the Shepparton sports and events centre was awarded, which will refine the project and make it shovel-ready for construction. The project will change the face of sport and entertainment in the Goulburn Valley, and I urge the minister to support it. HOMELESSNESS Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (17:50): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Housing, and my ask is that the minister as a matter of urgency meet with homelessness service providers and ensure they have the funding they need so no-one who is in need of shelter is left homeless. We are heading into yet another winter where there are far too many Victorians without a place to call home—couch surfing, living in temporary accommodation, sleeping in cars or on the street—and once again our homelessness services are struggling to manage demand for housing. We live in a wealthy state where we spend billions on infrastructure—on roads, on rail, on prisons and on new gas projects—yet for some reason this government seems to think it is acceptable to spend a fraction of this amount on our housing system, that it is acceptable to have thousands of people experiencing homelessness on any given day. While I am aware that the government has recently committed to a Big Housing Build of 12 000 new homes, this represents a fraction of demand after decades of negligence. And while I also know that the government continues to provide funding for crisis accommodation and housing support services, it is not enough and it is ultimately a bandaid solution that fails to address the problems of homelessness in our state. My office recently tried to assist someone in a desperate situation to find crisis accommodation. They were bounced around four different providers in the course of a day, each one passing us on to another. Two days later no crisis accommodation had been provided. This is just simply unacceptable. The system is overwhelmed, under-resourced and dysfunctional. This is not to disparage the individuals who try tirelessly each day to support people in need; it is to highlight that these services are struggling because the government has consistently failed to address the crisis in our housing system and expects these services to solve a problem that the government itself has created. The dysfunction has become normalised, and people are suffering. It does not have to be this way. It is especially frustrating because we know the answer to ending homelessness: provide plenty of affordable, long-term, publicly managed housing. In fact we saw the government move closer to this approach during COVID where they funded hotel and motel accommodation for anyone who needed it, so we know that we can end homelessness if we want to. Nobody should be homeless in Victoria. MRNA VICTORIA Ms WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (17:53): My adjournment matter is directed to the Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, the Honourable Jaala Pulford. Last week the minister made an exciting announcement about the leading global vaccine experts that have been enlisted to provide advice on mRNA vaccine manufacturing capability in Victoria, with an international pioneer to team up with local leaders to form mRNA Victoria’s new scientific advisory group. The group includes Dr Barney Graham, whose groundbreaking research into the spike protein ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2495 was a key part of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough. Dr Graham is the deputy director of the vaccine research centre at the US National Institutes of Health, NIH, and worked with American company Moderna to create their mRNA vaccine. This group will help strengthen expertise around Victoria’s mRNA vaccine capability and build on the $50 million Victorian government commitment to build an mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility which will help equip Australia with vaccine support for protection against coronavirus and future pandemics and the capability for new research breakthroughs. The action that I seek from the minister is to direct her department to provide me with an update on how this exciting new project will benefit Victoria and Victorians. CRAIGIEBURN ROAD DUPLICATION Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (17:54): My adjournment matter tonight is for the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Craigieburn residents are concerned about traffic and congestion—the time to get home and the time to get to work. My office has recently conducted a traffic survey in Craigieburn, and I am very grateful to all those residents who responded to that survey. We were inundated with replies from residents who are frustrated with traffic on Craigieburn Road, on Mickleham Road and on Aitken Boulevard. Every morning residents experience choked roads and frustration as the traffic is banked up, and quite frankly they have just had enough. According to the latest census data 67.7 per cent of Craigieburn residents use their car to get to work. In 2018—two years ago—these drivers were promised that Craigieburn Road would be duplicated and that construction would begin in 2020. Nothing has happened so far. Understandably they are very frustrated. These residents, because of delays, are angry, and despite their pleas they are not being listened to. The action I seek from the minister is to advise me so I can advise my residents and constituents of the Craigieburn area: when will the Craigieburn Road duplication begin? And will it really be a 2025 completion date as has been outlined, seven years after it was promised? TRACKLESS TRAMS Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (17:56): My adjournment tonight is for Minister Allan, the Minister for Transport Infrastructure. Last week I was pleased to meet with both Vicinity Centres and Monash University regarding their proposal for trackless trams between Caulfield and Rowville. This $1.45 billion trackless rapid transit, or TRT, proposal would connect Caulfield station, Chadstone, Monash Clayton and Rowville, improving access to jobs and services as well as slashing billions from the cost of a heavy-rail transport link between Caulfield and Rowville. These high-capacity electric TRT vehicles could be up and running on the route by 2025. This is very exciting new technology, and I think this is the beginning of an important shift. For a long time heavy rail has dominated our transport system. While it certainly is the best option in some circumstances, in others it can be absurdly expensive and lack the flexibility to be adapted to future transport needs. Trackless trams are cheaper, more flexible and faster to construct than heavy rail. They can deliver the ride and experience of a tram without the expensive infrastructure, including dedicated tracks and overhead wires. This proposed trackless tram could carry up to 1800 passengers per hour in each direction, delivering travel times of 20 minutes between Caulfield and Monash Clayton and 11 minutes between Monash Clayton and Rowville. I believe this proposal is deserving of the government’s consideration. We must look to future problems. We know congestion will be an issue, we know that the south-east economic corridor is rapidly expanding and we know that we should be reducing our emissions by employing electric technology. Meeting these demands requires innovative solutions. In many cases it will be of great benefit to have a low-cost transport solution that can be adapted to future needs, but we need to have a shift of mindset first. Therefore the action I seek is: will the government consider the adoption of trackless trams to solve the lack of mobility in the south-east economic corridor? ADJOURNMENT 2496 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

COMMUNITY SPORT FUNDING Ms VAGHELA (Western Metropolitan) (17:58): My adjournment matter is directed to the Honourable Ros Spence, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Community Sport and Minister for Youth. This adjournment matter relates to the portfolio responsibilities of community sport. The Andrews Labor government has taken the initiative to provide help for sporting clubs to negotiate restrictions through the sporting club grants program. The proposed plan intends to deliver more support for grassroots sports clubs and their members, with new payments of $2000. The proposed grant from the sporting club grants program is available for clubs that have incurred costs that cannot be recouped after events or activities were cancelled or postponed. Under this program the costs that can be claimed include cancellation fees for facilities, coaches and officials as well as the loss of perishable goods and booking fees. This is part of the government’s endeavour to make sport more accessible and inclusive, boost local economies and build sustainable sport and recreation. It also aims to create volunteer opportunities and increase local participation. This funding would be of great assistance to those clubs and organisations reeling under the strain of the pandemic crisis. This is an initiative to help and support them as some of them have suffered hefty losses due to the cancellation of their events. Many community sporting clubs have been recovering, and with this financial support those clubs will resume their momentum in no time. It is worthy of mention that since 2014 more than $12 million has been allocated to support approximately 8100 sporting clubs across the state. Furthermore, the Victorian government has allocated more than $30 million to clubs, leagues, state associations and other organisations through the community sport sector COVID-19 short-term survival package. The action I seek from the minister is to provide me with an update on how the government is promoting this important initiative and how this funding will benefit the sporting clubs of the Western Metropolitan Region. COVID-19 VACCINATION Ms CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (18:00): My adjournment matter this evening is for the attention of the Minister for Health, and it relates to the numbers of frontline healthcare workers who have been vaccinated. I have been asking the government for this data for many, many weeks. I think it is really important that we are getting vaccinated. I am having my second dose of AstraZeneca next week, and I am very concerned about the numbers of frontline health workers who have not actually been vaccinated. The government has rushed a blitz for paramedics just a few days ago, and it is now the middle of the year, June. I have been listening to the government’s responses to the debate on the private members bill that I put up in relation to transparency and accountability, and they were all talking about vaccination and why it was the federal government’s fault. Yet the state government has done nothing. They have done no communication across the board, across the community, and especially they have done nothing really to enable healthcare workers to come forward—only since we have been in a lockdown, which has been a massive incentive for anyone to get vaccinated because people are absolutely sick of lockdown and they are sick of the harsh restrictions. But importantly I have just got off the telephone from somebody who spoke to me about her husband, who has had a very severe medical emergency episode, and he has been in a major hospital for over a month in intensive care and recovering. But she said to me that he says there is no way to check if those healthcare workers that are looking after him have been vaccinated. How do we know? Nobody needs to declare, and in her words she said he feels like a sitting duck. Patients are sitting ducks because there is no way to know if healthcare workers have actually been vaccinated. So the action I seek is for the minister to get going and get me that information that I requested weeks and weeks and weeks ago about how many healthcare workers have actually been vaccinated to give the assurance to the public when they go into hospital that their frontline healthcare workers, or anyone working within the hospital system, have been vaccinated. We need more confidence in the system, and we need assurances that the government—the state government—have done their job instead of continually blaming others for the lack of what they should have already done. ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2497

DROMANA QUARRY Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (18:03): My adjournment debate is to the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change. A few weeks ago I was fortunate enough to spend the morning with Mark and Michelle from the Save Arthurs Seat campaign and the Peninsula Preservation Group. I joined them for a hike through the bushland that is under threat from a proposed quarry at Arthurs Seat. As you may be aware, the Ross Trust is seeking approval for a new quarry on the bay- facing slopes of Arthurs Seat in the heartland of the Mornington Peninsula. I must confess that I was absolutely unaware of the pristine bushland here prior to my visit. I had assumed that a proposed quarry would be at some rocky site cleared of or with regrowth scrub. However, after walking around this large piece of native bush with Mark and Michelle, I could not believe the beautiful and extensive natural habitat here. One would have to see it in person to understand how incredible and unique this area is. We hiked through an environmental wonderland full of hills and valleys, waterfalls, creeks, beautiful canopy trees, flora, ferns and fungi—evidence of native habitat—surrounded by chirping native birds. It is here at this site that 94 acres of bushland would be blasted away and excavated into a new quarry. Seventy million tonnes of granite is proposed to be gouged from a hole 190 metres deep in the side of Arthurs Seat. I am flabbergasted that an essential wildlife corridor with irreplaceable native mammal and plant habitat would even be considered for this proposal. There are rare and threatened species at the site, including the southern brown bandicoot, the powerful owl and koalas. I am told that 28 endangered or threatened species would lose their habitat if this quarry goes ahead. In 2021 we are in the midst of a climate and biodiversity crisis. I have been sitting on the inquiry into habitat decline, and the message is clear across every submission: we must stop the environmental destruction of and the human impact on what we have left of our wild places. Conservation of high-value habitat must be our immediate collective priority, and I am told that the state does not need the granite from Arthurs Seat to meet future demand; there are ample supplies in existing quarries elsewhere. Whilst I understand that the Minister for Planning is to sign off on this project, I do feel that it is important for the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change to understand the impacts of this project on our environment. Reading about it online or in an environment effects statement just does not give you the full picture of the enormity of what is at stake here. So the action I seek is for the minister to accept an invitation to meet with the Save Arthurs Seat group and walk through this site in person. EMERGENCY SERVICES VOLUNTEERS Mr O’DONOHUE (Eastern Victoria) (18:06): I raise a matter for the attention of the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services. There has been quite some speculation amongst the volunteer community, particularly the CFA volunteer community, that with the creation of Fire Rescue Victoria volunteers have been discriminated against in relation to access to training and that their training opportunities have been diminished despite the guarantees of the government that they would continue to have the same opportunities they had prior to the creation of FRV and its takeover of the CFA. Following the storm event in the Dandenongs and Gippsland I have spoken to many volunteers—SES volunteers, CFA volunteers—who invariably were the first responders, along with police, on the scene and clearing roads and clearing debris for access and safety. What the CFA volunteers tell me is that there are now strict quotas in place for each brigade in relation to extra training. So, for example, one brigade in the Dandenongs told me they had a little over 20 operational members and only eight members were allowed to have training for chainsaw use, to get a chainsaw ticket. Another brigade told me that given the number of members they had they could only have a certain number of members who had training for rope rescue and extraction, which was a key part of removing people from houses that had been damaged by the trees that had fallen over. ADJOURNMENT 2498 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

So the consequence of that was that CFA volunteers, without any immediate response or support, were left with two choices: either they would go home and not remove the trees and debris, because they do not have the certificate for chainsawing, or they would take the risk and save people and remove them from their houses by clearing the way with a chainsaw. Of course we are not talking about your little suburban chainsaw that you or I might have to cut up a tree in a backyard; we are talking about the very large chainsaws required to move those enormous trees that fell over in these storms. What an invidious choice for these community-minded good people who volunteer their time to help their communities. It is time that the government recognises the challenges that FRV has created for the volunteer community and it resources the volunteers appropriately. They are giving their time for free. They are risking their safety for the community. The least the government can do is to give them the training they require. So the action I would seek from the minister is that he urgently review the training processes and systems for CFA volunteers so that in future events such as the storm event that impacted the Dandenongs and Gippsland there is sufficient training for those volunteers in these types of activities. FAMILY VIOLENCE MALE VICTIMS Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (18:09): My adjournment matter is to the Minister for Health, and the action that I seek is for the minister to provide additional resources for men who are victims of violence, including information online. We have heard about the increase in domestic violence, but very little is ever heard about the men who are victims of violence. According to the latest personal safety survey, from the age of 15 one in 16 men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from a current partner or ex-partner, one in six men have experienced emotional abuse from a current partner or ex-partner, one in 20 men have experienced sexual violence and one in four men who have experienced emotional abuse have also been assaulted or threatened with assault. In the year ending June 2019 Victoria Police completed a report for 51 622 alleged victims of violence by current or former partners. Of those, almost one in five were male, but it is widely believed that these figures are understated and do not really paint the full picture. One reason for this is that violence against men can be difficult to identify. Frontline workers consistently report that men are more likely to suffer psychological abuse than physical violence. As they may not be battered and bruised, men often find it difficult to recognise that they are being abused and to identify as a victim, so they do not report it. Men can also feel a much greater sense of shame and humiliation about being abused. It is also less socially acceptable for men to admit or to report experiences of abuse. Even if it causes less physical harm, it is not harmless; it is violence, and violence against anyone is completely unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is the lack of crucial support. Men have almost nowhere to turn. There are virtually no specialist family violence services for victims who are male. In 2016 the Royal Commission into Family Violence found that there were, and I will quote:

… opportunities to improve the understanding of male victims and services for them … and that:

… the Victorian Government should take steps to identify and take account of the needs of male victims … I searched the VicHealth website for violence against men and could not find one thing about support services for men. Now, resources need to be allocated for men who are victims and to encourage them, please, to come forward. SEVERE WEATHER EVENT Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (18:12): My adjournment matter this evening is for the acting Minister for Police and Emergency Services. It is 2021, and Gippslanders deserve a proper and responsive flood monitoring and warning system. The residents of Traralgon deserve also a fully ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2499 integrated and responsive monitoring system and warning system—unlike what was experienced by those residents that live along the Traralgon Creek on Wednesday, 9 June, and also Thursday, 10 June. There were minor flood warnings issued. There were moderate flood warnings issued. Residents only learned of the major flood warning and then the subsequent ‘Evacuate now’ warning 4 hours after the raging torrent of the Traralgon Creek flowed through the streets, flowed through people’s homes and wrecked their cars and had their TVs floating in their lounge rooms. This is 2021, and this system has not worked. Why wasn’t the flood action plan implemented? It is a responsive plan that exists, where step-by-step instructions occur when river levels get to certain heights. People are asking this. They are crying out for this, and many of them are hurting because it has physically, financially and emotionally impacted on them. Why didn’t anyone implement this? I have other questions. Why when there are flood monitoring systems—there are in-stream monitoring systems; there are rain gauges—and when that data is live and in real time didn’t it go to the Bureau of Meteorology and go back out to the people who should be sitting there monitoring that? Mr Crisp said that there was a gap in the system. Well, this gap has cost people emotionally, physically and financially. Why is there a gap? We saw the tennis courts wrecked. We saw the football club, the men’s shed, the roller derby shed, the gym, the Mantra hotel. Now, it may have flooded already in the Mantra hotel, but there were about a dozen cars that could have been removed previously had the warning systems gone through. There are old people there who are sitting in their houses because they are too frightened to leave them even though there is mud underneath and their heating systems do not work. This is not good enough. I call on the state government and I call on the minister. We have heard that there is going to be a review, but it needs to be comprehensive, it needs to be transparent, it needs to have subject matter experts—Latrobe City Council, the Gippsland regional flood monitoring group, the local CFA and the local SES. It needs to implement a proper response, and that response needs to be transferred across this state, because there are going to be other floods and we do not want to see again what happened in Traralgon. COVID-19 Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:15): My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Health. Victoria is currently suffering under the extended state-of-emergency powers which this government gave itself in March. The Liberal Democrats opposed this extension because these powers have been an excuse for the use of violence against Victorians. We have seen people being arrested for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. We have seen public housing residents locked in their home under police guard. These powers have been used for financial and social destruction on a broad scale. We have seen businesses close because under emergency powers their customer base disappeared. We have seen students forced to learn from home. We have seen people abandoned or isolated because they were not allowed to have visitors. We have seen all of regional Victoria suffer for a few cases in Melbourne. This government’s track record on abusing Victorians has been documented globally. Observers have asked themselves if this is Australia, where we are young and free, or some far-flung country suffering under a brutal dictator. The state of emergency is due to end in December. By December everyone who wants to get vaccinated should have had time to get their shots and the excuse to keep us like this will have ended. December 4, in the first weekend of summer, should be our freedom day. Perhaps we will gather in largish groups in public areas organised over social media or go shopping without telling the government exactly where we are at every moment. We will start to do again what we once took for granted: live our lives without fear of being arrested or handed a fine. The virus will not be over in December. It will enter our country; some people will get sick and some people will die. I expect the vaccinated will fare better than the unvaccinated, but it will be adults making choices for themselves. What we are waiting for is normal human behaviour to once again become normal. ADJOURNMENT 2500 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Most of Victoria has had more than it can stand of abuse by this government. Many of those who once embraced the boot upon their neck have grown weary, and those who only ever grudgingly accepted the boot are increasingly rejecting it. Victorians have had enough of being stepped on. December must be the end of it all—the end of the state of emergency, the end of the lockdowns, the end of the closed borders and the end of the elimination strategy. I call on the Minister for Health to end the oppression of all Victorians and allow them to celebrate 4 December, freedom day, as an end to this badly written horror story and the start of a new, better one. COVID-19 Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:17): My adjournment matter is for the Premier. It relates to the complete decimation of the Victorian events industry by his government’s ministers and health advisers. Victoria used to be the event capital of Australia. With more than 120 000 events worth over $12 billion, we led the nation, yet now that title and the countless businesses and livelihoods which depended on it have gone north to New South Wales. The explanation is simple: we have all suffered from COVID, but the responses of the state governments have been poles apart. I will quote from a media release yesterday from the excellent Save Victorian Events group:

Victoria Maximum event capacity of 75 people indoors or 150 people outdoors. Still no roadmap for the further lifting of restrictions. Here is the contrast:

New South Wales “If you are planning to go to an organised event … Those events should proceed. “Because all major events, all outdoor events, all events have good … safety plans. “So we don’t want anyone to cancel any events. We don’t want anyone to cancel any of those organised ticketed events in particular. “Just make sure that whether you are the organiser of the event or you are someone that is attending that you stick to those recommendations that we’ve given you. Stick to the good Covid safety plans. “Those safety plans have worked for us in New South Wales. We don’t want people panicking.” That is a quote from Gladys Berejiklian, the Premier of New South Wales. So the action I seek from the Premier is for a new approach to be taken by his government, one which swallows its pride and recognises that we do not always operate the gold standard in this state. Now is the time for Victoria to recognise that health outcomes are not the only thing that matters and that life as a whole depends on mature and responsible government decisions which weigh up all considerations. The Save Victorian Events release concludes:

We need a Premier who is actively and passionately advocating for events to happen and to keep happening. Who is giving the market confidence. We need a Health Department that trusts the Covid Safe plans they approve to work. Events are very highly controlled environments and the Event Industry are experts in managing complex risks. We need a Health Department that works with the Event Industry—and not just with sport—to get events happening again safely! CREATIVE INDUSTRIES FUNDING Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (18:20): I think that was a great segue, Mrs McArthur, to my adjournment matter, which probably digs a little bit deeper. Mrs McArthur: Always here to help. Ms PATTEN: I appreciate that, Mrs McArthur. It is to the Minister for Creative Industries, and the action I am seeking is support packages for the artists who have fallen through the cracks. As we know, Victoria prides itself on being the arts capital of Australia, and pre COVID Victoria’s creative ADJOURNMENT Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2501 industries contributed more than $30 billion to the state’s economy each year. But even today— certainly in Northern Metropolitan, which I think likes to consider itself the capital of creative industries in Melbourne—we are seeing our performers, our writers, our musicians, our painters, our singers and our dancers just really questioning where society values them and where they put them, because they really feel like they have fallen through the cracks. They have never earned a lot of money. Most of them have obviously earned under $75 000 a year, so they do not qualify for any of the packages, both state and federal, currently. Some of them may even have more than $10 000 in the bank—very few of them—which puts them out of any opportunity for any support anywhere. And as we know, our artists live gig to gig, exhibition to exhibition, festival to festival. That might mean they have got some savings in there, but it does not mean that they are less deserving of our support. I know Minister Pearson said just last year that creative industries are at the heart of Victoria’s economy, are the vibrancy of our communities and our way of life and will be essential in our post- pandemic recovery. So right now I think we need to put those words into action, and the action I seek is for the minister to put together a targeted support package for people working in creative industries who have lost work over COVID. RESPONSES Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:23): I thank all members for their contributions to the adjournment debate this evening. I have matters from 14 members, and 13 of them I will provide to my colleagues and seek responses, as is our custom and practice. Ms Watt raised an adjournment matter for me on the progress towards developing mRNA vaccine development and manufacturing capability. I am happy to acquit this now, and I will follow up with Ms Watt directly and make sure that that happens. I also have written responses to adjournment debate matters from six members. Thanks, everyone, and have a nice evening. Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (18:24): I just want to raise the issue of unanswered adjournment matters. I refer to adjournment matter ADJ896 on 15 October 2020, which went to the Minister for Health. That remains unanswered. Matter ADJ1024 on 25 November to the Attorney- General on class actions remains unanswered. On 2 February 2021, ADJ1095 to the Minister for Health on COVID-19 also remains unanswered. I wonder if they could be answered. Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business) (18:25): I will follow those matters up for you, Mrs McArthur. The PRESIDENT: On that basis, the house stands adjourned. House adjourned 6.25 pm. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2502 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Written adjournment responses Responses have been incorporated in the form supplied by the departments on behalf of the appropriate ministers. Wednesday, 23 June 2021

COVID-19 In reply to Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (2 September 2020) Mr DONNELLAN (Narre Warren North—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Disability, Ageing and Carers):

In September 2020, the Victorian Government announced an investment of $11.3 million to support Victorians in need of food and essential supplies during the pandemic. This investment included: • $2.3 million to extend the Emergency Food Relief Program to provide food and essential items to Victorians who are in self-isolation due to coronavirus, who have little or no food, and no network of family and friends to support them. • $5 million for a Community Food Relief Fund which will provide grants to support community organisations supplying food to Victorians in need during the coronavirus pandemic. • $3.5 million for the Building Regional Food Networks which will increase capacity at a network of food distribution hubs in regional areas, ensuring food gets to where it’s needed by strengthening the link between suppliers and those experiencing food insecurity. • $500,000 to establish a Food Relief Taskforce to bring together stakeholders across the food relief system to ensure food supply and distribution is targeted to areas most in need. The $5 million Community Food Relief Fund provided grants of up to $75,000 to incorporated community organisations who provide food and material aid to Victorians in need of support. This funding assists with a range of challenges like helping develop innovative food relief delivery models to support COVIDSafe practices. Earlier this year I was pleased to announce that 93 community organisations were successful in their application to increase their capacity to provide food relief to Victorians in need. 5 organisations have received a Community Food Relief Fund grant for projects within the City of Greater Dandenong: • Keysborough Learning Centre—Emergency Food Transport & Volunteer Engagement • The Redeemed Christian Church of God Inc, (Jesus House)—Helping Hand Project • Cornerstone Contact Centre Inc—Increasing Cornerstone’s capacity for food storage and distribution through purchase of a van, cool room and freezer • Pakistan Welfare Organisation In Australia—PWOA Food Drive • Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA)—Supporting delivery of emergency relief activities and establishing a foodbank for vulnerable Aboriginal communities Funding was provided between January–March 2021. It is anticipated that the government investment in the 93 projects will enable the provision of an additional 2,000,000 meals and 180,000 food hampers to Victorians in need. The government also provides annual funding of $3.6 million to Foodbank Victoria. This vital funding supports the provision of 16.7 million meals through more than 530 charity partners across Victoria. In June 2021, the Andrews Labor Government announced further support for food relief activities, with $4.5 million to assist state-wide food relief organisations and regional food relief distribution centres to bolster their supplies of goods to cover any gaps in donations. This will ensure local, community facing food relief organisations maintain a consistent supply of food relief. I thank the member for their ongoing interest and advocacy in food relief for Victorians and in his region of Dandenong. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES Wednesday, 23 June 2021 Legislative Council 2503

COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLE INDUSTRY In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (27 October 2020) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Government recognises the imperative for Victorian Government Agencies to maintain proper standards in litigation. That is why all agencies are required to behave as model litigants. As a Victorian Government Agency, Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (CPVV) has acted with propriety, fairness and in accordance with the highest professional standards in this matter. CPVV has provided a number of documents to the Applicants in line with the Supreme Court order to make discovery of documents relating to the 2016 commercial passenger vehicle reforms. CPVV will continue to act in accordance with its model litigant obligations and abide by the Orders of the Court. PLANNING PROCESS In reply to Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (25 May 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

It is very important that precinct structure plans (PSPs) and planning controls set land aside for non- government schools in growth areas. To ensure orderly planning through the development of a PSP, adequate provision must be made for education purposes, including non-government schools. However, the planning system has limited ability to preserve privately owned land for the benefit of private land interests (including private or for-purpose enterprises that provide schools, or other forms of community infrastructure). The Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) drafts PSPs and supporting guidance to ensure that land is set aside for non-government schools unless and until it can be demonstrated that the land is not needed or will not be developed for that purpose. The Truganina PSP set land aside for the development of two potential non-governmental schools. An application to subdivide one of the sites for residential purposes was subject to a recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearing. VCAT applied the tests set out in the VPA’s PSP note titled ‘Development of Non-Government Schools for an Alternative Purpose’ and concluded that approval of an alternative use for the school site was warranted in the circumstances of this particular case. In doing so, VCAT gave due consideration to a range of matters including the extent of development surrounding the site and the fact that Catholic Education Melbourne had withdrawn from its purchase of the site and no other agency had come forward to purchase the site. The Victorian School Building Authority was established in 2016 to oversee the design and construction of new schools and early childhood centres, as well as the modernisation and upgrade of existing ones. The Victorian Government has committed more than $9 billion for these projects which form part of the Education State reforms. In 2018 the Victorian Government announced it would alter planning laws and create a dedicated planning unit within the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to fast-track non- government school approvals for new schools and upgrades. These changes are in place. CAMPING REGULATION In reply to Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (25 May 2021) Ms HORNE (Williamstown—Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Fishing and Boating):

Thank you for your question of 25 May 2021 about the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I am pleased to advise that Agriculture Victoria has confirmed there is no increased biosecurity risk as a result of camping on Crown land, and that licence holders would already have a biosecurity plan in place given the use of the licensed area is not exclusive to the licence holder. The removal of the prohibition on camping on licensed river frontages recognises that this activity has been occurring on many of these frontages for many years and allows for it to be better managed through regulations. This also regularises the situation between licensed river frontages and unlicensed river frontages, State Forests and National Parks—where camping is currently permitted. WRITTEN ADJOURNMENT RESPONSES 2504 Legislative Council Wednesday, 23 June 2021

GREATER GEELONG ENERGY PROJECTS In reply to Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (26 May 2021) Mr WYNNE (Richmond—Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing):

Viva Energy referred their proposal for a Gas Terminal Project to me in December 2020, to determine whether an environment effects statement (EES) is required. The proposal is to moor a floating storage and regasification unit in Corio Bay for the import of liquified natural gas and supply to the south-eastern Australian gas market. I subsequently decided that an EES is required for the project. My department has established a technical reference group to provide advice to the proponent and my department during the preparation of the proponent’s EES for the Gas Terminal Project. The draft scoping requirements for the EES were recently exhibited for public comment for 15 business days. I received 13 submissions from the community, all of which have been considered in updating the final scope, which will be published on my department’s website in due course. The proponent has also prepared a detailed EES consultation program for the next few months: The program is also on the department’s website. I encourage all members of the community to engage in the EES process to help inform the assessments being undertaken by Viva. Viva Energy’s proposed solar farm, diesel storage facility and hydrogen facility are separate projects to the Gas Terminal Project. They have not come to me for consideration. The second proposal you refer to by another proponent, Vopak, is for development of a different gas import terminal in Port Phillip Bay. It has not been referred to me under the Environment Effects Act at this stage. My department has only had initial engagement with proponent. In regard to funding arrangements for either project your question falls within the responsibilities of the Minister for Regional Development. Your questions will need to be re-directed accordingly. MULTIPURPOSE TAXI PROGRAM In reply to Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (26 May 2021) Mr CARROLL (Niddrie—Minister for Public Transport, Minister for Roads and Road Safety):

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) establishes a regime for releasing information held by public sector agencies to members of the public upon request, including grounds upon which documents requested may be exempt from release. Where a document contains exempt or irrelevant information, the Act allows the document to be redacted to remove the exempt or irrelevant information and enable the remainder of the information in the document to be provided to the person making the request. I am informed that Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria assessed the Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region’s request in accordance with the provisions of the Act and provided reasons for all redacted information. Where a person is dissatisfied with an agency’s decision under the Act, they may apply for review of the decision by the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, an independent regulator with oversight of information access. I am advised that the Member has pursued this path on this matter and so it is not appropriate for me to comment any further. I also note that the Member will shortly receive an Order for Production of Documents on the Multi Purpose Taxi Program trial and that the Economic and Infrastructure Committee’s Inquiry into the Multi Purpose Taxi Program is underway.